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 Today, 01:46 AM
 
4,969 posts, read 2,990,185 times
Reputation: 3142

Advertisements

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-env...medium=ios_app


I know it comes off as sensationalist. I usually post threads like this because it interesting to see the talks between deniers and believers.

Though I don’t thing sensationalizing things is good as it gets people into not taking a matter seriously. Someone posted a comment that I agreed with:

“Interesting article

“A more fundamental problem with deadline-ism is that it might incite cynical, cry-wolf responses and undermine the credibility of climate science when an anticipated disaster does not happen.”

“The impacts of climate change are more likely to be intermittent, slow and gradual.”

So I guess the challenge is to convince people that we need to act even though disaster may not be imminent.”



Followed by:
“It's kind of a catch-22. Citing the pure data doesn't sound like enough of a motivation for the average layperson ("If we don't act now, temperatures will rise by a degree a decade from now!"), while going into speculation risks backfiring if it doesn't happen as predicted ("Twenty years ago, they said we'd all be underwater by now!").”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 01:53 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,771 posts, read 9,880,260 times
Reputation: 9909
If anthropogenic climate change wasn't a hoax, we might see common sense initiatives like:
1) 80% transition to electric traction rail in place of long haul diesel trucking, urban and suburban mass transit. Not only will it save 90-95% in fuel, allow for energy recovery braking, but reduce petroleum consumption below domestic production.
2) Superinsulation, energy conservation, resilient and frugal housing. Housing consumes a substantial amount of resources to build, repair, and maintain. Ditto, for dealing with natural disasters.
3) Securing coastlines and recovering seafloor not unlike the Netherlands, with extensive levees and flood protection.
Why aren't the ALARMISTS seeking these common sense solutions?
Are the rich selling off their waterfront property?
No-o-o-o.
Alarmists want money and power by taxing air and sequestering carbon (!) despite the fact that the #1 greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR and plants need carbon dioxide to live.


It's a hoax, folks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:15 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
11,820 posts, read 4,044,070 times
Reputation: 7348
The 18 months was Prince Charles speaking about the importance of critical UN meetings that are due to take place between now and the end of 2020.

It's not literally 18 months, it's just the importance some commentators are placing on climate change meetings for our future, and more especially the UN meetings over the nxt 18 months.

Last edited by Brave New World; Today at 03:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:25 AM
 
4,969 posts, read 2,990,185 times
Reputation: 3142
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
If anthropogenic climate change wasn't a hoax, we might see common sense initiatives like:
1) 80% transition to electric traction rail in place of long haul diesel trucking, urban and suburban mass transit. Not only will it save 90-95% in fuel, allow for energy recovery braking, but reduce petroleum consumption below domestic production.
2) Superinsulation, energy conservation, resilient and frugal housing. Housing consumes a substantial amount of resources to build, repair, and maintain. Ditto, for dealing with natural disasters.
3) Securing coastlines and recovering seafloor not unlike the Netherlands, with extensive levees and flood protection.
Why aren't the ALARMISTS seeking these common sense solutions?
Are the rich selling off their waterfront property?
No-o-o-o.
Alarmists want money and power by taxing air and sequestering carbon (!) despite the fact that the #1 greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR and plants need carbon dioxide to live.


It's a hoax, folks.
I think the main reason is because many people don't want change..

Los Angeles is a perfect example. L.A. would benefit from more rail and more density as more people would live closer to their job and drive less thus causing less emissions.

People DO vote for L.A. to change it's ways. I have. I support more public transit as many others do.
Older generations don't want that. They still see L.A. as a giant suburb and don't want it to change because we're changing the character of the neighborhoods. And it's complicated because I see gentrification as a double edged sword. But I do see the benefit in changing how L.A. operates as a city. The same people who vote to keep it the same are the same that complain about the problems caused by L.A. staying the same.

So this is what's happening. People do want these changes that you suggest but greed often gets in the way. Your right, but you don't see that the refusal to change pushes back because old money doesn't wanna move to the side or retire..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:30 AM
 
Location: NY
3,979 posts, read 1,016,220 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
If anthropogenic climate change wasn't a hoax, we might see common sense initiatives like:
1) 80% transition to electric traction rail in place of long haul diesel trucking, urban and suburban mass transit. Not only will it save 90-95% in fuel, allow for energy recovery braking, but reduce petroleum consumption below domestic production.
2) Superinsulation, energy conservation, resilient and frugal housing. Housing consumes a substantial amount of resources to build, repair, and maintain. Ditto, for dealing with natural disasters.
3) Securing coastlines and recovering seafloor not unlike the Netherlands, with extensive levees and flood protection.
Why aren't the ALARMISTS seeking these common sense solutions?
Are the rich selling off their waterfront property?
No-o-o-o.
Alarmists want money and power by taxing air and sequestering carbon (!) despite the fact that the #1 greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR and plants need carbon dioxide to live.


It's a hoax, folks.



...................and I was worried that we might result to walking around in clothes made out of corn husks and shoes made out of banana skins foraging for our meals.....................shucks...........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:41 AM
 
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
10,542 posts, read 8,804,772 times
Reputation: 12245
The urgency is due to the fact that for a long time climate change scientists were looking at changes in average temperatures. It's only been in the last 5-10 years that the capacity to project extreme events has been built into climate models. It's no accident that this coincides with their actual occurrence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:41 AM
 
6,469 posts, read 3,379,758 times
Reputation: 6656
Why aren’t alarmist talking about population control?
NOTHING would make more of a difference in CO2, ozone, pollutants, etc than reducing human populations......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:45 AM
 
272 posts, read 136,248 times
Reputation: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrose View Post
Why aren’t alarmist talking about population control?
NOTHING would make more of a difference in CO2, ozone, pollutants, etc than reducing human populations......
Why arent people talking about the huge swing in the magnetic poles?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:51 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
12,681 posts, read 4,283,878 times
Reputation: 10002
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
If anthropogenic climate change wasn't a hoax, we might see common sense initiatives like:
1) 80% transition to electric traction rail in place of long haul diesel trucking, urban and suburban mass transit. Not only will it save 90-95% in fuel, allow for energy recovery braking, but reduce petroleum consumption below domestic production.
2) Superinsulation, energy conservation, resilient and frugal housing. Housing consumes a substantial amount of resources to build, repair, and maintain. Ditto, for dealing with natural disasters.
3) Securing coastlines and recovering seafloor not unlike the Netherlands, with extensive levees and flood protection.
Why aren't the ALARMISTS seeking these common sense solutions?
Are the rich selling off their waterfront property?
No-o-o-o.
Alarmists want money and power by taxing air and sequestering carbon (!) despite the fact that the #1 greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR and plants need carbon dioxide to live.


It's a hoax, folks.
Correct. When the banks stop lending to people building on the coast, and the insurance companies stop insuring - then I'll start to believe it a bit more. Of course both of these industries could always go back to the feds for a 'bailout' should the coasts eventually be underwater anyway, so who knows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:51 AM
 
Location: Japan
10,824 posts, read 4,468,846 times
Reputation: 6975
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
If anthropogenic climate change wasn't a hoax, we might see common sense initiatives like:
1) 80% transition to electric traction rail in place of long haul diesel trucking, urban and suburban mass transit. Not only will it save 90-95% in fuel, allow for energy recovery braking, but reduce petroleum consumption below domestic production.
2) Superinsulation, energy conservation, resilient and frugal housing. Housing consumes a substantial amount of resources to build, repair, and maintain. Ditto, for dealing with natural disasters.
3) Securing coastlines and recovering seafloor not unlike the Netherlands, with extensive levees and flood protection.
Why aren't the ALARMISTS seeking these common sense solutions?
Are the rich selling off their waterfront property?
No-o-o-o.
Alarmists want money and power by taxing air and sequestering carbon (!) despite the fact that the #1 greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR and plants need carbon dioxide to live.


It's a hoax, folks.
You're doing well thinking about common sense initiatives. Why toss that out the window because ALARMISTS and rich people don't display common sense? Why allow them to control your thinking on the topic?
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

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top