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)
 
Old 06-03-2016, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,536 posts, read 37,140,220 times
Reputation: 14000

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon View Post
That entirely depends on the uneducated ignoramus.


Ignorant, someone that ignores. Someone with a PhD can be very much inclined to ignore what is in plane sight and the product of common sense.
I think you should first learn what the word "ignorant" means before making comments...Hint...It does not mean ignore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2016, 01:34 PM
 
Location: USA
18,492 posts, read 9,161,666 times
Reputation: 8526
Fact 1: We're dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That's not up for debate.

Fact 2: It's well know that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas. In fact, if we didn't have CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth would be much colder. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the earth's average temperature. None of that is up for debate.

Fact 3: The earth's temperature has been steadily rising. It's been measured on land, at sea, and from space. Arctic sea ice is melting rapidly, and ocean temperatures are increasing. None of that is up for debate either.

The conclusion seems rather obvious, doesn't it? Burning fossil fuels is increasing the earth's temperature. We probably shouldn't keep doing this long term, since we only have one atmosphere. If we screw up the climate, we don't have a back-up planet to move to.

Nobody is suggesting that we shut down the global economy. But it would seem prudent to find other ways of getting economical energy that doesn't involve burning fossil fuels. Or if that is not possible, find a way to capture the CO2 instead of dumping it into the atmosphere.

I don't understand why this is a Left vs. Right issue. Quite a bit of the USA's agricultural production is in climate-sensitive areas like the Great Plains and California. Do we Good God Fearin' Amurricans really want secular Canada and Russia becoming the bread baskets and super powers of the world, with the USA becoming a food-poor third-world country like Mexico?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 01:48 PM
 
3,792 posts, read 2,385,439 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
I think you should first learn what the word "ignorant" means before making comments...Hint...It does not mean ignore.
yes but it sounds like... And that makes a good joke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 01:52 PM
 
3,792 posts, read 2,385,439 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
...

The conclusion seems rather obvious, doesn't it? Burning fossil fuels is increasing the earth's temperature. We probably shouldn't keep doing this long term, since we only have one atmosphere. If we screw up the climate, we don't have a back-up planet to move to.

...
That depends on how deep you look at the problem. Warmer = less ice. Less ice = Younger Dryas. Younger Dryas = colder.


What is the cure for colder?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 01:55 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,118,333 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
Especially when discussing works of fiction.
How so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 01:58 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,118,333 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Typical, you rely too much on your personal bias, and cherished stereotypes.

I've been around the world, and yes, there are a lot of countries with foul air and horrible water; and that's even after it comes out of the tap.
You could have fooled me....

If you had been around the world, you would have experienced air pollution so bad that is stings the skin. So I'm not really sure why you are pulling that ignorant, "attacking the producers" nonsense earlier. Over reliance of fossil fuels causes short term pollution and contributes to climate change in the longer term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 01:59 PM
 
Location: USA
18,492 posts, read 9,161,666 times
Reputation: 8526
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon View Post
That depends on how deep you look at the problem. Warmer = less ice. Less ice = Younger Dryas. Younger Dryas = colder.


What is the cure for colder?
Colder? The earth's temperature is rising, and has been rising for decades. That's a fact:

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...al-temperature
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 02:01 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,118,333 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
That's what you base everything on. We are lucky enough to be in a natural warming cycle, and you fools have convinced yourselves that CO2 is causing it. We should be lucky enough to still be living in the Little Ice-Age, if not for humans burning their fossil fuels.

If the climate we are experiencing now, had been the one from a few hundred years ago, and we were heading into the LIA, and a get rich scheme, and a power-grab could be had for politicians, the same people would blame humans for the LIA too.
Huh?

I don't know what's so hard to understand the mankind's actions are affecting Earth's natural climate mechanisms. You don't dispute that increased geological activity has caused climate change in the past? Why can't mankind's action of releasing gigatons of greenhouses effect climate? Are the emissions between a tail pipe and a volcanic vent inherently different?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 02:01 PM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 2,739,460 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by STWR View Post
Obviously it would be better if people weren't stupid enough to believe the BS in opinion columns, right wing blogs, and threads on forums like this one... but since that's not going to happen, this is probably the next best thing. In fact, it should happen more often.
That's a California house bill. Not an op Ed piece.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 02:03 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,118,333 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
Someone with a PhD can be willing to ignore the truth, for enough grant money.
Or oil and gas money. Or freight money. Or mineral extractors money. Or manufacturing money.

See how silly your argument is.
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. The time now is 09:59 AM.

© 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