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 "debate" hasn't been a debate at all for the last 30 years. It is transparently political activism which, early on, took on the tone of religious fanaticism as a very short-sighted ploy to quash any and all doubt.
It is, in fact, the same Marxism pushed today by violent mobs in the streets of our large cities. But the lies promoting "climate change" angst come from sophisticates, pseudo-intellectuals whose sole marketable skill is a knack for making others feel stupid if they dare question the dogma.
There's a misconception with how man made green house effects to the global temps. I know NASA loves to put out stats that show temps around the world keeps going up. But the truth is that the earth was much hotter in the past. There was a time when the poles weren't frozen and there were abundance of life. And there was a time when the poles expanded and life perished and had to restart over.
So the narrative that climate change will kill everything is exaggerated, we have the technology to keep most nations alive if there were some extreme periods of weather we can get through them better today than ever.
The whole earth doomsday and going to mars is just a way for Elon Musk to sell Mars tickets. He knows perfectly well how to survive on earth with major climate changes.
I agree. I think instead of trying to stop the inevitable, we need to simply learn how to adapt to an ever changing climate. Man may have some impact on climate change, but I dont think that overall man has created it.
People buy electric/hybrid vehicles because they feel they are doing their part to help the environment, however, it still takes a source of power to generate electricity in order to charge them. These vehicles also create more harm to the environment during manufacturing as well as at the end of the life expectancy with all of the highly toxic batteries sitting around. But hey, the zero emission is helping the environment.
Nuclear is no better in my opinion, it still pollutes the earth and could cause catastrophic damage should there ever be an incident; I worked at a nuke plant for awhile and ever since, I have opposed them. I would rather find a way to reduce the emissions from a fossil fuel plant to help the environment than create other problems that will need to be solved at another time.
What if the same tactics were used to prove something is true?
Would that render the tactics invalid or more valid?
I see no evidence of that.
There are 168 oil refineries operating in the US.
Only 13 are owned by oil companies and half of those are foreign oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell and Citgo (Venezuela).
The remaining 155 oil refineries are owned and operated by Valero, Tesoro, Goodway, Hunt, Nustar, WRB, PDV, Frontier, Motiva and about a dozen others.
Those companies do not conduct exploration. They do not own oil or natural gas fields nor do they own the rights to oil or natural gas fields.
All they do is buy oil on the global market and refine it for various uses.
Additionally, the oil companies have pioneered alternative fuel and alternative energy resources. They spend and have spent literally $Billions on research and development of both alternative fuels and energy (fuels and energy are not the same thing).
So, why haven't they quashed R&D?
Let us examine scientific facts:
Our pollen-based climatic reconstruction suggests a mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA) range of 9–14.5 °C during the warmest interval of the last interglacial. The reconstruction from plant macrofossils, representing more local environments, reached MTWA values above 12.5 °C in contrast to today's 2.8 °C.
Just to make sure we're clear on the concept, 12.5°C is 22.5°F warmer than present temperatures.
From applications of both correspondence analysis regression and best modern analogue methodologies, we infer July air temperatures of the last interglacial to have been 4 to 5 °C warmer than present on eastern Baffin Island, which was warmer than any interval within the Holocene.
Again, to make sure we're clear on the concept, 4.0°C - 5.0°C is 7.2°F - 9.0°F.
Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today.
“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.
Please note the sources of those peer-reviewed scientific articles.
The sources are impeccable, meaning they cannot be impugned by claims of "oil industry publications" or "oil industry funded research."
Please note that the temperature in the previous Inter-Glacial Period was warmer than present.
Please note that sea levels were higher in previous Inter-Glacial Periods than present.
Taken together, those facts, and many others, refute the claims that are made.
Temperatures are supposed to rise, because this is an Inter-Glacial Period.
The temperatures are far less than other Inter-Glacial Periods.
Sea level rise is far less than other Inter-Glacial Periods.
The Greenland and Western Antarctic Ice Sheets normally melt during Inter-Glacial Periods.
The claim that temperatures in this Inter-Glacial Period should not rise higher than they are now is scientifically invalid and refuted by evidence from other Inter-Glacial Periods.
That does not mean the climate is not changing. It certainly is, but it is not caused by humans.
Will we be inconvenienced by sea level rise?
Sure, but it is not my fault humans built cities on coastal areas before humans fully understood how the Earth works.
Perhaps if we had known 2,000 years ago of the existence of a Glacial Age we would not have been so short-sighted as to build cities three feet from the high tide mark thinking the sea level would never change.
Global warming is preferable to global cooling.
Global warming will not kill anyone, but global cooling will kill 100s of Millions of people and ruin the economies of every country on Earth.
Gasoline is not oil, but it is made from oil.
As I mentioned, there are 168 oil refineries, but only 16 produce gasoline.
What do the other 155 oil refineries produce? Your Life-Style.
What we can infer from that is your gasoline supply is fixed.
No matter what happens, you can only produce X amount of gasoline per year and not one drop more.
The only way to produce more gasoline is to build new refineries dedicated to gasoline production or stop producing the things for your Life-Style to produce gasoline.
Take triethanolamine.
It is made from oil and used for liquid laundry detergent.
If you stop refining triethanolamine from oil, then you can no longer buy liquid laundry detergent anywhere in the US, unless you import either triethanolomine, or liquid laundry detergent, or both from other countries.
Good point.
Can you give examples of deceptive tactics being used to prove a truism?
Three of the four scientific papers you cite, are now 12-15 years old....
The Eemian period you reference was 120K years ago. World population then was maybe 15,000. They didn't even have laundromats then, nevermind submarines, spaceships, and shoe polish.
They couldn't light enough fires to keep warm let alone raise global temperature.
Can you give examples of deceptive tactics being used to prove a truism?
Three of the four scientific papers you cite, are now 12-15 years old....
They couldn't light enough fires to keep warm let alone raise global temperature.
Not sure what your point is--
a) In regards date of publication of research--Does Truth dissipate over time?
2) 15,000 cavemen sitting around campfires wasn't enough to cause Global Warming, yet it did occur. Why do we need petroleum use to explain the current warming?
Note that we recently had ~10% fall in automotive fuel use during the "CoV Shutdown," yet there has been no change in world temps and co2 levels continued to rise & fall according to their yearly patterns. (Actully ht a record high for the modern era in May) The burning of fossil fuels contributes just a smidgeon to the planet's carbon cycle budget, and complete shut down of ICEs would not affect weather or climate at all, despite the claims of the Watermelons.
a) In regards date of publication of research--Does Truth dissipate over time?
2) 15,000 cavemen sitting around campfires wasn't enough to cause Global Warming, yet it did occur. Why do we need petroleum use to explain the current warming?
Note that we recently had ~10% fall in automotive fuel use during the "CoV Shutdown," yet there has been no change in world temps and co2 levels continued to rise & fall according to their yearly patterns. (Actully ht a record high for the modern era in May) The burning of fossil fuels contributes just a smidgeon to the planet's carbon cycle budget, and complete shut down of ICEs would not affect weather or climate at all, despite the claims of the Watermelons.
What explains the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from under 300ppm at the start of the Industrial Age to 400ppm now? Has there been something other than burning of fossil fuels dumping CO2 into the atmosphere?
6 months of reduction in fuel use isn't going to have an immediate impact. It takes a while.
a) In regards date of publication of research--Does Truth dissipate over time?
2) 15,000 cavemen sitting around campfires wasn't enough to cause Global Warming, yet it did occur. Why do we need petroleum use to explain the current warming?
Note that we recently had ~10% fall in automotive fuel use during the "CoV Shutdown," yet there has been no change in world temps and co2 levels continued to rise & fall according to their yearly patterns. (Actully ht a record high for the modern era in May) The burning of fossil fuels contributes just a smidgeon to the planet's carbon cycle budget, and complete shut down of ICEs would not affect weather or climate at all, despite the claims of the Watermelons.
Yes, truth sometimes does dissipate*over time, when new or previously unknown facts emerge. Sun orbiting Earth? Flat Earth?
Because the current warming pattern is compressed into a much smaller time scale, 150 years, than previous warming patterns.*
It’s not an answer to the question but in some ways it makes it moot. I recently heard this particular rant by Jordan Peterson on the question, “can climate change unite us?” and his insights about the inability to measure progress, the evident insolubility of the problem, and other things, has really made me stumble out of my normal stride on this topic.
That aside, I think any reasonable reading of the relevant literature shows the link between temperatures and CO2 levels, so to say it’s not man-made is just to cherry pick the data or misunderstand the multiple variables that contribute to the climate at any one time.
It’s not an answer to the question but in some ways it makes it moot. I recently heard this particular rant by Jordan Peterson on the question, “can climate change unite us?” and his insights about the inability to measure progress, the evident insolubility of the problem, and other things, has really made me stumble out of my normal stride on this topic.
That aside, I think any reasonable reading of the relevant literature shows the link between temperatures and CO2 levels, so to say it’s not man-made is just to cherry pick the data or misunderstand the multiple variables that contribute to the climate at any one time.
However . . . Jordan Peterson is COMPLETELY Clueless on the actual Topic of Climate Change.
He is a Psych Prof and has no background in the Hard Science nor Energy Issues of the topic.
He is a Psych Prof and has no background in the Hard Science nor Energy Issues of the topic.
Yes, fair point, but also an incomplete CV. He’s an accomplished researcher in the hard sciences with hundreds of peer-reviewed papers to his name, which have thousands of citations between them. That’s no small accomplishment. Not in climate sciences, true, but that he is scientifically literate is undoubted. He also was consulted for the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development from 2011-2013, during which time he claims to have read hundreds of relevant scientific papers. Given his scientific literacy and familiarity with the literature, I wouldn’t dismiss him so quickly.
But yes, one also ought not take every interpretation of his for granted.
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.
