Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-15-2018, 11:13 AM
 
25,442 posts, read 9,800,380 times
Reputation: 15333

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
who is denying science??




so why are the liberfools denying science with their warped brains that cant figure out the environmental change is a natural cycle


just WHO are the SCIENCE deniers...the fascist liberals who are pushing the tax hoax of 'man-made' climate change

where has any conservative, or any other said that climate change is a myth??

actually 99% of the scientists and 99% of people understand that climate change always happens,,and the earth has warmed and cooled many,many,many, many times...all naturally


climate change is not a hoax or a myth.....but..."man-made" climate change is a hoax the FACT is man has extremely little to due with any climate change...99% of the scientists say that man's part is less than 4%

most rational people understand that climate change always happens,,and the earth has warmed and cooled many,many,many, many times...all naturally

1. science shows the climate changes naturally

2. science shows that climate change is natural with co2, methane, water vapor, sun cycles, rotation of the earth, earths core activity, and weather patterns all having play in it

3. science shows that the earth has warmed and cooled many, many times, with the cycles be for the most part regular....but never EXACTLY the same

4. science shows that the co2 has been much, much higher...even in cooler times

5. science (and botany ) shows that plants grow much better in higher co2....1200ppm is optimum

6. science shows that a warmer climate is not a desert climate, but a tropical wetter climate...

7. science shows that warming will be better for humans, as we will have longer growing seasons, with less need for irrigation

8 science (and botany) shows that if co2 goes below 200ppm plants stop growing

9. science shows that humans may have a SMALL part, in climate change (less than 10%)...therefore making the fascist mantra of ''man-made/man-caused"" a LIE

10. common sense shows that a carbon tax, will NOT reduce anyones carbon footprint, but will make the fascist liberal rich, richer


11. SCIENCE says that the climate changes NATURALLY....why do the big ego liberals think that man HAS TO BE the cause....especially when NOT ONE SCIENTIST has proven it to be man made/man caused


12. everyone knows (and its scientifically proven) that climate has changed many, many times

13.. and yet NOT ONE scientist has proven MANMADE global warming...science does show.. the globe evolves. The global environment changes..periodically...there have been WARMER TIMES..there have been cooler times..there have been times when C02 was MUCH, MUCH higher


14. guess what our co2 levels are currently around 380-390ppm.... co2 levels were over 700 ppm 20 thousand years ago....so what's the big deal


15. science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER... .guess what, by science no less...the ideal co2 ppm for most plants is....900-1500 ppm.......


15a. Science shows plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration, as they tend to display lower stomatal conductance.

15b. Science shows the amount of carbon gained per unit of water lost per unit leaf area - or water-use efficiency - should increase dramatically as the air's CO2 content rises.

15c. Scinece and the study of science shows In the study of Serraj et al. (1999), soybeans grown at 700 ppm CO2 displayed 10 to 25% reductions in total water loss while simultaneously exhibiting increases in dry weight of as much as 33%. So, elevated CO2 significantly increased the water-use efficiencies of the studied plants.

15d. science shows, that the typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research (SCIENCE) demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2.

15e. Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. (this is why companys and governments SELL CO2 generators for greenhouses)


15f. science shows it is clear that as the CO2 content of the air continues to rise, nearly all of earth's agricultural species will respond favorably by exhibiting increases in water-use efficiency... which means, one can expect global agricultural productivity to rise in tandem with future increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration.

so more co2 is actually GREENER...its not theory, its scientific fact

16. science shows that humans use oxygen and expel (exhale) co2

17. science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expels o2

18. science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush fertile land, not covered in ice

19. science shows us that Greenland was once a green lush fertile land, not covered with ice, in fact tropical like

20.. science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of glaciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)


21. world greenhouse gas levels lower today than 1992......and thats with the US population increasing 70 million..and world population increasing 1.6 Billion since 1992


22. cleaner air, is causing alot of the warming
Why cleaner air could speed global warming - latimes




In what must rank as the mother of all unintended consequences, and in a finding certain to have effects on international policy, NASA scientists have found that a decrease in airborne sulfates—dirty smokestack particles caused by burning coal and regulated by the Clean Air Act since the 1970s to prevent acid rain and air pollution—may account for as much as 45% of Arctic warming. Dr. Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies reports:

"Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50%. While improving air quality and
aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates."


Cleaner air, one of the signature achievements of the U.S. environmental movement, is certainly worth celebrating. Scientists estimate that the U.S. Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant called sulfate aerosols, for example, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems.

But even as industrialized and developing nations alike steadily reduce aerosol pollution -- caused primarily by burning coal -- climate scientists are beginning to understand just how much these tiny particles have helped keep the planet cool. A silent benefit of sulfates, in fact, is that they've been helpfully blocking sunlight from striking the Earth for many decades, by brightening clouds and expanding their coverage. Emerging science suggests that their underappreciated impact has been incredible.

Researchers believe that natural greenhouse gases such as CO2 have committed the Earth to an eventual warming of roughly 4 degrees Fahrenheit, a quarter of which the planet has already experienced. Thanks to cooling by aerosols starting in the 1940s, however, the planet has only felt a portion of that greenhouse warming. In the 1980s, sulfate pollution dropped as Western nations enhanced pollution controls, and as a result, global warming accelerated.

There's hot debate over the size of what amounts to a cooling mask, but there's no question that it will diminish as industries continue to clean traditional pollutants from their smokestacks. Unlike CO2, which persists in the atmosphere for centuries, aerosols last for a week at most in the air. So cutting them would probably accelerate global warming rapidly.

In a recent paper in the journal Climate Dynamics, modelers forecast what would happen if nations instituted all existing pollution controls on industrial sources and vehicles by 2030. They found the current rate of warming -- roughly 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade -- doubled worldwide, and nearly tripled in North America.










and finally ....common sense states that as the earths population expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.......yet the global warming liberals only want to talk about car/industry exhaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it

its the liberfools, that are LYING on the subject

99% of the scientists believe in climate change...and 99% belive man's contribution is LESS THAN 4%

how can LESS THAN 4% be called ''man-made''?? if you were selling a piece of furniture... and 96% was made by machine, would you advertise "hand-made" for this piece of furniture????


so endeth the lesson

the biggest thing is why do the fascist brown shirt liberals deny science, and the fact , that the truth is it is a natural occurrence , and that NOTHING WE DO will change or speedup, or slow, or stop the natural climate change
And then there's this.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...e#.W3Re8s5KiUk

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

With that said, people will believe or not believe what they will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-15-2018, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,536 posts, read 37,132,711 times
Reputation: 13999
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom View Post
And then there's this.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...e#.W3Re8s5KiUk

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

With that said, people will believe or not believe what they will.
Belief will not change the facts..... The climate is warming, and humans are to blame. Without our contribution to atmospheric CO2 I believe the planet would be still cooling as it was for thousands of years before the industrial age...

What would have happened had the Industrial Revolution and the corresponding anthropogenic climate change been delayed a couple hundred years? The Earth might have been in the midst of a new ice age, Europe might have been too cold to support industry, and things may not have gotten going at all. Who’s gonna write the screenplay for this movie?

https://kottke.org/13/09/temperature...st-11000-years
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,478,139 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Belief will not change the facts..... The climate is warming, and humans are to blame. Without our contribution to atmospheric CO2 I believe the planet would be still cooling as it was for thousands of years before the industrial age...

What would have happened had the Industrial Revolution and the corresponding anthropogenic climate change been delayed a couple hundred years? The Earth might have been in the midst of a new ice age, Europe might have been too cold to support industry, and things may not have gotten going at all. Who’s gonna write the screenplay for this movie?

https://kottke.org/13/09/temperature...st-11000-years
the climate is warming..and it is part of the natural cycle...


last major ice age was about 18,000 years ago..and we have been warming since.... its called the interglacial period.


Every interglacial period has peaked (global average) at about 73'-75'F..we are currently at about 59'....we still have hundreds of years of warming to go.... is mankind idiots about being good custodians of our wonderful 4 billion yr old earth... yes...... does mankind waste resources... yes... does mankind litter too much... yes....... but the warming is natural.... only an idiot would deny the science of that fact
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 12:43 PM
 
8,059 posts, read 3,943,773 times
Reputation: 5356
CO2 is being 'framed'.... postmodernism has controlled the climate since the late 1980s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 01:11 PM
 
17,569 posts, read 13,344,160 times
Reputation: 33008
Quote:
Originally Posted by illinoisphotographer View Post
We can see the rates of temperature changes that have increased significantly over the past few decades. This does lead to issues like less snow or rainfall in areas (like Colorado, where I live) and will cause long-term damage. While climate change is a natural process, we can't deny that we are accelerating our way into a warming period and causing toxic fumes to be part of our atmosphere causing deadly smog and inversions.

Or stop creating wars to protect oil interests and instead fund more green solutions and technologies.
You are watching too many apocalypse movies! And, drinking the inventor of the Internet's Kool-aid

The "past few decades" are nothing but a tick on the geological clock.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 01:12 PM
 
17,569 posts, read 13,344,160 times
Reputation: 33008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McDonald View Post
The cycle is now turning. At the opposite end of it, is when humans and other higher forms of life are extinct.
And, you know that? HOW?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,159,948 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618 View Post
Instead of denying science and trying to convince everyone that global warming is a hoax for the sake of corporate interests or religious ideology, why not accept the science but make your case as to why laws and regulations to help combat it aren't a good idea?
I'm not sure you understand the science.

CP - Abstract - How warm was Greenland during the last interglacial period?

8.5°C corresponds to 15.3°F warmer.

7.5°C corresponds to 13.5°F warmer.

Note that the pre-industrial period is pegged at 13.8°C or 56.8°F, so add 56.8°F + 15.3°F = 72.1°F.

The numbers I use for the previous Inter-Glacial Periods 7.8°F (4.3°C) to 10.4°F (5.7°C) are very conservative estimates from the Utah State government's geology web-site.

Here's another:

On the basis of water stable isotopes, NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation. Between 128,000 and 122,000 years ago, the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by 400 ± 250 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 ± 300 metres lower than the present. Extensive surface melt occurred at the NEEM site during the Eemian, a phenomenon witnessed when melt layers formed again at NEEM during the exceptional heat of July 2012. With additional warming, surface melt might become more common in the future.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11789.html

8°C equates to 14.4°F

They're saying plus/minus 4°C so 12°C is 21.6°F and 4°C is 7.2°F.

Now do you understand?

Somehow, I don't think you do.

Nature 462, 342-345 (19 November 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08564; Received 9 October 2008; Accepted 5 October 2009

Evidence for warmer interglacials in East Antarctic ice cores

For warmer climates, an analyse of several long (340 kyr) ice core records from across East Antarctica, alongside input from isotopic GCM modelling, indicated that for warmer interglacial periods, conversions vary between different East Antarctic ice core sites (Sime et al. 2009). Results indicate that the East Antarctic water isotopes tend to be less sensitive to temperature changes during warmer climates. This indicates that previous temperature estimates from interglacial climates are likely to be too low. The available evidence is consistent with Antarctic interglacial temperatures that were significantly (more than 6°C) higher than present day.

[emphasis mine]

6°C is 10.8°F

This is an Inter-Glacial Period.

Temperatures increase, and it gets warm.

It gets a helluva lot warmer than it is now, with or without CO2.

If you stopped all CO2 emissions in 1970, the Earth would still increase in temperature, and the Greenland Ice-Sheet would still melt, and your coastal areas would still become inundated.

There's nothing you can do about it.

Where is the remnant of the ice-sheet from the Inter-Glacial Period prior to the Emian?

There isn't any.

It melted away 100%.

Only 10% of the ice-sheet from the Emian Period -- the Inter-Glacial Period before now -- remains, because 90% of the Greenland Ice-Sheet melted.

There's nothing you can do about it.

One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.
For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

[emphasis mine]

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages ? What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey


Now, do you understand?

Temperatures on Earth fluctuate wildly for no apparent reason, and scientists are at a loss to explain why.

You should consider the fact that the IPCC constitution mandates that it study man-made global warming only, and no other causes or effects for warming or cooling.

Not only is that incredibly bad scientific policy, it is incredibly bad public policy.

Imagine if all of cancer research facilities in the US were mandated to only examine smoking/tobacco as the cause of cancer, without even attempting to look at other factors like genetics, viruses, and environmental factors such as ionizing radiation and organic chemicals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 02:25 PM
 
25,442 posts, read 9,800,380 times
Reputation: 15333
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Belief will not change the facts..... The climate is warming, and humans are to blame. Without our contribution to atmospheric CO2 I believe the planet would be still cooling as it was for thousands of years before the industrial age...

What would have happened had the Industrial Revolution and the corresponding anthropogenic climate change been delayed a couple hundred years? The Earth might have been in the midst of a new ice age, Europe might have been too cold to support industry, and things may not have gotten going at all. Who’s gonna write the screenplay for this movie?

https://kottke.org/13/09/temperature...st-11000-years
Totally agree that belief is not going to stop what cannot be stopped.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 02:26 PM
 
25,442 posts, read 9,800,380 times
Reputation: 15333
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
the climate is warming..and it is part of the natural cycle...


last major ice age was about 18,000 years ago..and we have been warming since.... its called the interglacial period.


Every interglacial period has peaked (global average) at about 73'-75'F..we are currently at about 59'....we still have hundreds of years of warming to go.... is mankind idiots about being good custodians of our wonderful 4 billion yr old earth... yes...... does mankind waste resources... yes... does mankind litter too much... yes....... but the warming is natural.... only an idiot would deny the science of that fact
Guess there are lots of scientists out there who are idiots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 02:28 PM
 
Location: annandale, va & slidell, la
9,267 posts, read 5,117,757 times
Reputation: 8471
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618 View Post
Instead of denying science and trying to convince everyone that global warming is a hoax for the sake of corporate interests or religious ideology, why not accept the science but make your case as to why laws and regulations to help combat it aren't a good idea? There are some legitimate cases that can be made on whether or not the benefit of a policy to help curb climate change would actually be effective at all and whether or not the benefit outweighs the cost (be it in terms of the deficit or a hit to the economy). It seems to me that would be more effective than trying to undermine the scientific community. I'm certain several of the responses I get will be stuff like "climate change is a leftist hoax" or something similar. However I am more apt to trust the science since its includes things we can measure over the conservative position that a deity, for whom no proof exists, controls the weather. When it comes to "scientific" reports that cast doubt on climate change, follow the money. Typically it will lead to either some corporation that benefits from lax climate laws or some religious organization.

So for those that support the free market and don't think environmental laws are necessary, why don't you frame your argument that way instead of trying to deny the science?
I don't think like you. How's that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top