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.
I think you are onto something here. Someone (possibly in this thread?) posted an article a week or so ago that pointed out that the so called left-wing conspiracies (like vaccines) are actually fairly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Similarly, the so called right-wing conspiracies like evolution and climate change are also fairly evenly divided among Republicans and Democrats.
Climate change is more partisan than evolution, though I think it is less partisan in countries outside of the USA. The political hacks in America from both the Left and the Right use highly charged and divisive language to describe anyone with the opposite view over the issue, which I think accounts for more left-right correlation here.
Just to clarify, nobody disputes that climate changes. It always has, and it always will, as long as there is an atmosphere. The dispute is the CAUSE of the climate change.
Democrats place the blame on humans, and therefore only humans can alter the climate through more and more taxation, magically. Democrats want hide their heads in the sand and pretend that we do not exist by reducing our "carbon footprint" and lowering our standard of living.
Republicans considers climate change as part of the natural cycle, and therefore cannot be altered by humans one way or the other, and that it is extremely arrogant and hedonistic to think otherwise. Republicans want to adapt to the ever changing climate.
The Democrat's solution is the path to extinction. The Republican's solution is the path to the survival of the species.
Just to clarify, nobody disputes that climate changes. It always has, and it always will, as long as there is an atmosphere. The dispute is the CAUSE of the climate change.
And when were there 7,000,000,000 people on the planet having to cope with the results of the change?
If there were only 100,000,000 and we had the current level of technology why would there be any reason to give a damn about climate change? But what will two or three billion starving people do if the climate change affects food production?
How long has it been since the CO2 level was this high?
When has the CO2 level ever changed this fast?
Pretending this is an academic question is ridiculous. Duh, there has been climate change before. Have a billion people ever starved to death in a decade? Can that happen in this century.
At the time when events led to the end of snowball earth, some 600 million years ago. 6500 parts per million
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
Pretending this is an academic question is ridiculous. Duh, there has been climate change before. Have a billion people ever starved to death in a decade? Can that happen in this century.
psik
Ah yes, a billion people "might" starve over the course of a decade so we must destroy the economy in order to prevent that.
There is, of course, no proof that such a thing might happen.
Thats why we thinking people call you people ALARMISTS! May Chicken Littles might be a better name.
Hell, I'm more worried about a big ol' asteroid spanking us soundly, as in end of life event. We have a couple of close encounters on the planetary daybook as I write.
Hey sanspeur - note that one of your fellow travelers is claiming CO2 as the only cause of concern. Gonna lecture him?
At the time when events led to the end of snowball earth, some 600 million years ago. 6500 parts per million
Ah yes, a billion people "might" starve over the course of a decade so we must destroy the economy in order to prevent that.
There is, of course, no proof that such a thing might happen.
Thats why we thinking people call you people ALARMISTS! May Chicken Littles might be a better name.
Hell, I'm more worried about a big ol' asteroid spanking us soundly, as in end of life event. We have a couple of close encounters on the planetary daybook as I write.
Hey sanspeur - note that one of your fellow travelers is claiming CO2 as the only cause of concern. Gonna lecture him?
A billion people starving to death or increased economic cost for energy, tough choice.
This is the prediction by scientists and many environmental groups, enough proof for most people other than looking in you rear view mirror.
Simple question, what would it take to convince you that the threat is real.
Ah yes, a billion people "might" starve over the course of a decade so we must destroy the economy in order to prevent that.
In the last 60 years how many people claiming to know so much about economics have suggested anything as simple as mandatory accounting in the high schools. Would that ruin the economy or just mess up the economic power games that some people want to play. Oh yeah, the pawns must be kept ignorant and told they are stupid.
It makes no sense to listen to people talk about the economy if they can't mention something as simple as what every country loses on the depreciation of all of its automobiles every year. It must be too complicated for Nobel Prize winning economists. 45 years after the Moon landing and they can't figure out planned obsolescence in cars.
And when were there 7,000,000,000 people on the planet having to cope with the results of the change?
If there were only 100,000,000 and we had the current level of technology why would there be any reason to give a damn about climate change? But what will two or three billion starving people do if the climate change affects food production?
How long has it been since the CO2 level was this high?
When has the CO2 level ever changed this fast?
Pretending this is an academic question is ridiculous. Duh, there has been climate change before. Have a billion people ever starved to death in a decade? Can that happen in this century.
psik
We will do what every other species on the planet has done before us, either adapt or die. It is one of the immutable laws of nature. No matter how warm this interglacial period becomes, it will eventually end (sooner rather than later) and return us to another 100,000 years of glaciation. Then you WILL see hundreds of millions or even billions die. A warmer climate, along with improved technology, gives us the means to increase the carrying capacity of the planet.
It has been ~2.75 ± 0.25 million years since CO2 levels were 400 ppm.
CO2 levels always spike during interglacial periods. According to the ice core samples taken from Antarctica, there have been four such spikes in CO2 levels in the last 460,000 years, all of them coinciding with an interglacial period. When CO2 levels drop like a stone, that is when to be concerned.
Funny how every fear-mongering prediction made by every AGW advocate has always been wrong.
At the time when events led to the end of snowball earth, some 600 million years ago. 6500 parts per million
That was a different situation 600 million years ago. With the entire planet covered in ice for 10 million years there would have been no evaporation. No evaporation means no clouds. If there are no clouds, then there cannot be rain to wash the CO2 out of the atmosphere. As a result CO2 levels continue to build and build, until radiative forcing causes the ice to melt. When the ice finally began to melt it did so rapidly, and there was extreme climate change like we cannot imagine today. There would have been acid rain for years all over the planet, massive storms, and generally not conducive to life on land. Fortunately, there was no life on land at the time. However, that dramatic climate change also opened up niches for life to evolve into a myriad of new forms extremely quickly according to the fossil record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann
Ah yes, a billion people "might" starve over the course of a decade so we must destroy the economy in order to prevent that.
There is, of course, no proof that such a thing might happen.
Thats why we thinking people call you people ALARMISTS! May Chicken Littles might be a better name.
Hell, I'm more worried about a big ol' asteroid spanking us soundly, as in end of life event. We have a couple of close encounters on the planetary daybook as I write.
Hey sanspeur - note that one of your fellow travelers is claiming CO2 as the only cause of concern. Gonna lecture him?
No need to worry about asteroids big enough to cause a mass extinction event, we know where 99.99% of them are, and none are expected to collide with Earth before the year 2800. It is the city-killing asteroids (25 meters to 100 meters) that should concern us. We know less than 1% of them, and they hit Earth much more frequently than the big ones.
Actual evidence, or at least some cost-benefit analysis.
It appears this is going to be very costly, seems like some developed nations with the highest per capita income could spare to take a hit since we are the primary users of fossil fuel. The poorer nations that use very little energy will suffer for our sins.
There are scientists from around the globe that agree CO2 is responsible in their models, no question the sea level is rising the only question to answer is why. The predictions based on science seem fairly reassuring that fossil fuels are the reason.
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.
