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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-14-2019, 10:53 AM
 
2,844 posts, read 946,132 times
Reputation: 2030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
The part that I find amusing is that all the predictions made by the doomsayers since oh, about 1970, most, if not all, of them Have. Not. Come. TRUE!
And yet, we are supposed to believe them when they say that we have 12 years to "do something" (no definitive ideas about what needs done, though) or we will all begin to DIE!!
For the Umpteenth time, NOBODY SAID THAT!

The IPCC set a goal, that we would not exceed 2 degrees of warming before the end of the century. They have said that if we don't take action in the next 12 years, we will never be able to reach that goal. Nobody said the world is going to end in 12 years. Nobody said that in 12 years we're all going to begin to die. Nobody said anything dire is going to happen in 12 years. Just that in 80 years we won't be able to meet this somewhat arbitrary goal.

Reading comprehension - IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT, people!

 
Old 08-14-2019, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee
5,052 posts, read 2,305,621 times
Reputation: 3249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
After nearly 50 years of caterwauling and insisting man's activities cause climate change, still NO PROOF?


All I can find are statements like, "man puts out carbon and greenhouse gases, those things can change climate, therefore man is changing the climate."

Sort of like saying, "Jim left his lawn sprinklers running five minutes longer than he should have, water can flood cities, therefore Jim is flooding cities."

And papers that relate statements like the above, using many erudite pages, but which ultimately refer to another paper for proof. And sure enough, that other paper carries on for more pages, but refers to yet another. And that one points to yet another etc.

Are there any actual studies that methodically prove that man is generating enough to overwhelm the earth's natural tendencies to absorb them? And do more to change the climate than the sun (a nuclear bomb a million times the size of the entire planet), all the volcanoes on Earth, and everything else that has been varying the Earth's climate long before man learned how to use tools?

Not just guesses, not just "everybody knows that...", not just references, not just "but it must be true that...".

Where is any proof that man's activities have any effect on climate? And/or can do anything to change it back?

When the manmade-climate-change can spend 50 years insisting that government must take huge taxes from us, and spend it on trying to change the climate... but are unable to come up with any proof it can actually change it...

Isn't that a pretty good indication that there can be no proof, because man's activities actually have nothing to do with the climate change we're seeing?

 
Old 08-14-2019, 11:00 AM
 
2,844 posts, read 946,132 times
Reputation: 2030
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascoma View Post
The problem is that reducing CO2 significantly would destroy our economy. Millions of people could die from starvation. We are dependent of fossil fuels and will be for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps. That is a completely different question.

If we can quit arguing about whether global warming is real, we can then move on to the question of what to do about it. It might be that the benefits of reducing CO2 are not worth the economic costs. But we can't have that conversation when idiots are arguing that they know more about climate than the world's most highly educated and trained scientists.
 
Old 08-14-2019, 11:13 AM
 
2,844 posts, read 946,132 times
Reputation: 2030
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
What a crock.


The EPA still regulates air and water quality- too aggressively.


"Scientists" who support AGW are showered with grants, while those who oppose AGW and support rational science are vilified. It is an academic witch hunt.

.
What's a crock is this notion that scientists are getting rich off global warming. As you ought to know, scientists don't make a lot of money, especially those in government or academia. Scientists in industry can make a decent living.

I assure you, if any scientist could prove AGW wrong, he would be showered with funding and well-compensated by the fossil fuel industry.
 
Old 08-15-2019, 06:10 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
31,115 posts, read 20,500,944 times
Reputation: 8677
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
Human caused warming is different than natural warming because of the time scales involved. Inter-glacial periods in the ice ages had warming periods that occurred over thousands of years. We are warming at a rate about 10x faster. Evolution cannot work fast enough to let species evolve on those time scales. And for humans it will likely be very disruptive also. People get desperate when their food and water disappears which will lead to massive migration and conflict. If all we had to worry about were the natural climate trends it would be far easier. Read Jerrod Diamond's work on the collapse of civilizations due to ecological problems caused by the people. It has happened several times, just on a smaller scale.
Gee-wiz Skippy...what makes you think the Earth is getting warmer?
 
Old 08-15-2019, 07:27 AM
 
3,624 posts, read 1,067,941 times
Reputation: 2223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
The IPCC set a goal, that we would not exceed 2 degrees of warming before the end of the century.
...and on the same breath....the UN/IPCC put policies in place....that guarantee CO2 emissions will increase

who's increasing emissions > http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0713_Fig3.jpg
 
Old 08-15-2019, 07:33 AM
TKO
 
Location: On the Border
3,355 posts, read 3,236,494 times
Reputation: 2701
After millions of years, there's no proof the sun is going to come up tomorrow either.
 
Old 08-15-2019, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
31,313 posts, read 32,191,418 times
Reputation: 12816
A gruesome scene due to climate change...

About 200 people died during their attempt to climb the Mount Everest. The highest mountain in the world has been climbed since 1922. Now snow and ice is melting the deaths on Mount Everest become visible due to climate change. Many climbers reached successfully the top of the Mount Everest but many died during this adventure.

https://www.whatsorb.com/news/climat...SABEgJi2PD_BwE
 
Old 08-15-2019, 08:49 AM
 
20,069 posts, read 12,620,607 times
Reputation: 11248
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
A gruesome scene due to climate change...

About 200 people died during their attempt to climb the Mount Everest. The highest mountain in the world has been climbed since 1922. Now snow and ice is melting the deaths on Mount Everest become visible due to climate change. Many climbers reached successfully the top of the Mount Everest but many died during this adventure.

https://www.whatsorb.com/news/climat...SABEgJi2PD_BwE


So have you given up air conditioning, central heat, electricity, and your car?


If not, you are just an AGW hypocrite.


PS- It's summer in the northern hemisphere. Ice melts more in the summer than the winter. Just remain patient and all will be well in four months. This is why we hike in Yosemite in the summer, rather than the winter; it is probably a strange concept, but one gets more snow, ice, and colder temps in the winter. CO2 induced "warming" just doesn't seem to work as well in the summer.


Also, what is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 29,000 feet? Okay- CO2 is 420 ppm at sea level, right? And CO2 concentration decreases 3% per thousand feet, right? So Everest is about 30,000 feet, so we have a 30% reduction in CO2, right?


.30 X 420 = 126


420- 126 = 294 ppm CO2 at the top of Everest.


SO you have just shown that your "AGW" effect is minimal, if not non-existent, on Everest.


Think before you speak, particularly when defending a hoax which cannot be defended.

Last edited by hawkeye2009; 08-15-2019 at 08:59 AM..
 
Old 08-15-2019, 08:59 AM
 
2,627 posts, read 719,125 times
Reputation: 1665
All of this noise over what should be a 5th grade science question......lol........the mystery is what does that big yellow ball have to do with it..........certainly the HOAX of the century
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.


Closed Thread

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. The time now is 10:38 PM.

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