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.
There's an incredible amount of evidence that we are the cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40
Remember the ice ages? The earth warmed up, massively --- and there was no industry to speak of, no CO2 being put in the atmosphere at all. And yet the earth still warmed up. You have no idea if we are warming the planet up, or if it's being done by other forces.
I recommend you read a bit more on the science.
Without overloading on the citations (which I may have in past responses to this topic), I recommend this resource as it breaks out many counterarguments against climate change and addresses each one individually: https://www.skepticalscience.com (for many breakdowns, they have multiple levels of complexity (i.e. more in depth/less in depth))
If you're curious about the sourcing, you can link through the citations to get more information (generally from the scientific papers).
They key thing is, we need to learn to improvise, adapt, and overcome the warmer temperatures. We need to turn a potential negative into a positive. We need to stop shedding liberal tears over something that may very well be uncontrollable.
Real climate scientists aren't crying about this. They're busy debating what effects we should expect (globally and nationally), when those effects may be felt, and if/how much we can actually mitigate the effects. And you're right, they're usually not worried about making people uncomfortable or passing along inconvenient conclusions. Science doesn't care about our feelings on the matter.
The debate has largely moved away from whether it's happening or whether we're the primary casual link (incredibly hard to deny if you look at the entire body of evidence), and moved to debating the overall effects and solutions to those (such as this group who have a great plan for how we could get off of fossil fuels by 2050: The Solutions Project - 100% Renewable Energy).
That isn't to say you shouldn't be skeptical...you should be, and you should always question everything. But it is not a very predictive use of scientific time (and money) to continually debate these points when the data keeps saying the same thing.
There are certainly solutions we can look towards (that people are working on). Many of them also happen to coincide with the need to find new energy sources (since we're using finite ones now), and I find these areas of research and development quite exciting.
I personally think we have a great opportunity as a nation to position ourselves as a leader in these areas, especially in our hardest hit areas - Midwestern manufacturing centers, for instance. We have many workers, R&D houses, and manufacturing facilities ripe for re-purposing.
As an example, my father used to work for an auto glass company in Toledo, Ohio, and after he retired he helped re-purpose an old glasd plant into a solar panel manufacturing facility. More stuff like this!
This discussion has gone in the predictable direction that I thought it would...which is a bit sad/depressing as there are good and productive discussions to be had in this realm.
Especially in regards to energy independence - there's no greater energy independence than sources that pollute little/nothing, and are sustainable for near eternity (as long as there's a burning sun).
That energy independence can definitely put America back to work, and I think these guys have done a great job of breading down how we could get there by 2050: The Solutions Project - 100% Renewable Energy
What you dream of either with reliable solar or wind WILL cause what you pay for energy to necessarily skyrocket. Grid scale storage technology doesn't exist, so grid solar, other than immediate load as the sun is shining, will not happen.
House solar see link to basic cost and continued cost numbers I posted based on a PV solar system for an average (average is based on average home electrical usage) home. //www.city-data.com/forum/47144649-post78.html
There is a lot covered there. This post I made wasn't only about solar.
I've noticed that most of the people who believe in anthropological global warming know next to nothing about data. When you ask them why they believe in AGW they almost always just say "because 97% of scientists believe we are warming the planet". Putting aside that this 97% figure is a lie that traveled around the world (actually 2/3 of "scientists" of all kinds of different backgrounds have no opinion), saying "because scientists say so" is not data. It's a logical fallacy (fundamental attribution error).
And when you confront believers in AGW about the Vostok / Greenland ice core data they say "Huh?" Never heard of it.
Or if you ask them what they think of the Danish Meteorilogical Institute that demonstrated a direct correlation between sun spots and earth temperature, they've never heard of that either.
Or if you confront them about the short, cherry picked time period that AGW supporters use to create their "hockey stick", they have no answer. They usually just get defensive.
As none of the responders are climatologists we can only formulate our opinions on the issue from what the scientists are telling us Eg;= https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring...al-warming.php
I guess for you its easy to just sit back in your chair and proclaim all their work to be nothing more than a logical fallacy lies and deception how about bringing forth as much evidence to refute their findings as they are using to back their claims.
We are using globally 100 million barrels of oil per day its illogical to think their are no consequences to this course of action.The scientists believe our massive use of fossil fuels is impacting the climate in a very negative way.
Pretty much. They don't understand science, so they just think what the PSM (Propaganda Stream Media) tells them to think. Gullible. Easy to manipulate simple minds.
Oh they understand, they have just made sure that the important elements were discarded in our education.
Go look up how they teach the scientific method these days. They removed the verification, validation, and replication phases. Now they just have a experimentation, report, and consensus.
Also note that they have gotten rid of the "null hypothesis" as well.
They know exactly what they are doing, you can even see them colluding about it in the climategate emails.
All they know is to apply Alinsky tactics to anyone who does not toe the line. The problem is, the kids they indoctrinated are too stupid to even hold a valid argument and so they resort to fallacious tactics so often that everyone pretty much ignores them these days. It is why the publics opinion on the issue is void, distrustful and uninterested.
There's an incredible amount of evidence that we are the cause.
I recommend you read a bit more on the science.
Without overloading on the citations (which I may have in past responses to this topic), I recommend this resource as it breaks out many counterarguments against climate change and addresses each one individually: https://www.skepticalscience.com (for many breakdowns, they have multiple levels of complexity (i.e. more in depth/less in depth))
If you're curious about the sourcing, you can link through the citations to get more information (generally from the scientific papers).
Real climate scientists aren't crying about this. They're busy debating what effects we should expect (globally and nationally), when those effects may be felt, and if/how much we can actually mitigate the effects. And you're right, they're usually not worried about making people uncomfortable or passing along inconvenient conclusions. Science doesn't care about our feelings on the matter.
The debate has largely moved away from whether it's happening or whether we're the primary casual link (incredibly hard to deny if you look at the entire body of evidence), and moved to debating the overall effects and solutions to those (such as this group who have a great plan for how we could get off of fossil fuels by 2050: The Solutions Project - 100% Renewable Energy).
That isn't to say you shouldn't be skeptical...you should be, and you should always question everything. But it is not a very predictive use of scientific time (and money) to continually debate these points when the data keeps saying the same thing.
There are certainly solutions we can look towards (that people are working on). Many of them also happen to coincide with the need to find new energy sources (since we're using finite ones now), and I find these areas of research and development quite exciting.
I personally think we have a great opportunity as a nation to position ourselves as a leader in these areas, especially in our hardest hit areas - Midwestern manufacturing centers, for instance. We have many workers, R&D houses, and manufacturing facilities ripe for re-purposing.
As an example, my father used to work for an auto glass company in Toledo, Ohio, and after he retired he helped re-purpose an old glasd plant into a solar panel manufacturing facility. More stuff like this!
Skeptical science is a blog, ran by a cartoon artist who has been caught so many times in lies that nobody pays attention to him anymore and all of his papers have been retracted because the guy couldn't do a proper evaluation to save his life.
Seriously, if you are educating yourself on that site, then it is no wonder you "believe" the things you do. By the way, Cook is also known for post editing the content of the scientists who have came to his site to defend their work. Nobody goes there anymore to defend because they are charlatans.
Do some actual investigation on the issue, everything I have said can be absolutely confirmed (Wayback machine is such a great tool for frauds!)
Fracking = earthquakes? Causation? Correlation? Related at all? Theory or scientifically proven fact?
We have years with elevated seismic activity, then years with diminished seismic activity. To date, the top seismic activity professionals have NEVER ONCE been able to accurately predict when and where an earthquake will happen 1 year in advance yet somehow we are supposed to believe that climate scientists or even top geologists, geophysicists or seismic professionals can accurately determine the ROOT CAUSE seismic activity in a specific area, attributing it to a single man made activity even though seismic activity can be caused by an infinite number of interactions between elements, conditions, fluctuations, movement, porosity, water tables, fluctuations of magma pressure and flow, etc.
Again, nothing but political, Cultural Marxism driven Critical Theory talking points you were spoon fed.
You're too easy.
They can't even correctly predict the weather for tomorrow ( I have even heard they can't get yesterday's weather correct) and we are supposed to believe the same people can predict what is going to happen 5 years, 10 years and more from now.
Well most of the scientists at NASA agree with AGW did they also cook the books on the new planet discoveries for funding.
"most of the scientists at NASA agree with AGW"
So? Most is NOT all.
Why don't you check out each and everey one of them and see where the money for thier projects comes from.
Don't forget, at ONE time ALL scientists believed the earth was flat.
Do you recall the email scandle about how scientist "cooked the books" and made things up to further their "theories" in order to get more MONEY for the projects?
Or the report that came out stating that lot of the measuring equipment didn't even work?
And some of the measuring equipment on tall building roof NEXT TO equipment that gave off HEAT causing unnatural HIGH readings?
We know most of the media believes in AGW.
I have stated on many occasions about many issues, It is NOT just what the media reports BUT, what they do NOT report.
These 2 items I refer to above did NOT get much MSM attention, so maybe you never read about them.
How about some of the TOP "scientists, that are used to support their claims have NOW changed their positions.
Have you heard about ANY of them?
"97 support...."is used often and is the basis of their position.
"The 97 Percent Solution fullscreen (Richard Nelson/Dreamstime) Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet Plus one article on Google Plus +1 Print Article Adjust font size AA by Ian Tuttle October 8, 2015 4:00 AM @iptuttle Unable to address Texas senator Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Sierra Club president Aaron Mair, after an uncomfortable pause of his own, appealed to authority: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact,” he stated multiple times. The relevant exchange begins at 1:39 (though the whole segment is worth watching): The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.” –– ADVERTISEMENT –– “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing. There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?
"
” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus. Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy."
"
[CENTER] Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: 'Global warming is a non-problem' 'I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong. Dead wrong.' 'Global warming really has become a new religion.' "I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November...I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position.' 'We have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.'"
“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)
“How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.
“Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [Note: Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change. See: Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming]
The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears.
“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained."
This pointless debate has been going on for years with one side believing what the climatologists are saying and predicting the other side believing it to be all lies and deception from a scientific community that has hidden agendas.
I doubt anyone has changed their opinions/viewpoints on the issue particularly from what is being put forth on forums,i'll continue to believe the scientific community as to date i've seen no credible evidence to refute their claims..
Marc, I usually really enjoy your postings, as you are the # 1 libertarian poster on here.
But this idea is really stupid. An explosion on a space ship that contains nuclear waste isn't going to end well for anyone. We as a people haven't even figured out not to build nuclear plants in areas that are prone to earthquakes. Let's figure that item out first.
I'm with you on using fossil fuels as we slowly transition to other forms of power over the next 500-1000 years.... namely solar and wind.
But you can't go all in on nuclear power. Disposal of waste is always going to be a problem.
I'm good with that. Maybe it is stupid. One day though we will figure out ways to avoid explosions when we launch spacecraft. Maybe a new fuel. Maybe nuclear power itself in some new form. It would be a good solution then.
What you dream of either with reliable solar or wind WILL cause what you pay for energy to necessarily skyrocket. Grid scale storage technology doesn't exist, so grid solar, other than immediate load as the sun is shining, will not happen.
House solar see link to basic cost and continued cost numbers I posted based on a PV solar system for an average (average is based on average home electrical usage) home. //www.city-data.com/forum/47144649-post78.html
There is a lot covered there. This post I made wasn't only about solar.
Which is why is a composite of more than just wind and solar. Also, this is by 2050, so it's not a suggestion of dropping everything today for sustainable energy technologies.
It's a gradual process of weening ourselves off of hydrocarbons, and replacing with sustainable energy technologies (usually many together). There are also intermediate steps of making the fossil fuel technologies we have now better/cleaner/more efficient.
You're welcome to disagree with their analysis, but it is based on real data and work from Stanford scientists - so it's not feel good nonsense.
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 02-26-2017 at 09:59 AM..
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.
