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 have been points in history in which the temperatures was far higher, and far lower than it is now. And C02 levels have been far higher, and far lower. All pre-dating man kind.
What is it that democrats are trying to accomplish by imposing more regulations and wasting billions of dollars? Are they going to press the magic "hold" button on the earth's climate controls?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1003
We wont know whether, or not, climate change is real. Or, if it is just another normal climate shift, for another 50-100 million years
Please comeback and report on your easily observable evidence then. Thanks
We can see the rates of temperature changes that have increased significantly over the past few decades. This does lead to issues like less snow or rainfall in areas (like Colorado, where I live) and will cause long-term damage. While climate change is a natural process, we can't deny that we are accelerating our way into a warming period and causing toxic fumes to be part of our atmosphere causing deadly smog and inversions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko20
No one denies climate change, they're denying Uncle Sam with his hand out asking for billions in order to fight climate change
Uncle Sam wastes plenty of money, certainly he can find some worthless government salaries to cut to fund his climate change obsession.
Or stop creating wars to protect oil interests and instead fund more green solutions and technologies.
Instead of denying science and trying to convince everyone that global warming is a hoax...why don't you frame your argument that way instead of trying to deny the science?
Quote:
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now...
...To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down...
...Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve...
Newsweek article written on April 28, 1975
[scribd]225798861[/scribd]
Quote:
"At this point we do not have the comfortable distance of tens of thousands of years to prepare for the next Ice Age, and that how carefully we monitor our atmospheric pollution will have direct bearing on the arrival and nature of the weather crisis. Once the freeze starts, it will be too late."
Science Digest 1973
"The Ice Age Cometh." ~ 1975 March cover of Science News
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur...
...In the period separating the two long droughts, Dr. Stine said, the water in Mono Lake rose to a level higher than any in the last 150 years, suggesting that the California climate was even wetter then than it is today. The last century and a half, Dr. Stine found, has been the third wettest period in the last three millenniums. But, he said, "the vast majority of years during the past 3,500 years have been much drier than what we've come to expect to be normal in California."...
...In gauging the length and frequency of droughts for planning purposes, California officials rely on a tree-ring study extending back to about 1560. Over that period, the 1928-1934 drought was the longest and worst. The problem, said Dr. Stine, is that the study period includes not only the wet 19th and 20th centuries, but also the even wetter 16th and 17th centuries. "They're using the wettest period of the last 3,000 years to define the duration and severity of the droughts we can expect in the future," he said.
Instead of denying science and trying to convince everyone that global warming is a hoax...why don't you frame your argument that way instead of trying to deny the science?
Quote:
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now...
...To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down...
...Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve...
"At this point we do not have the comfortable distance of tens of thousands of years to prepare for the next Ice Age, and that how carefully we monitor our atmospheric pollution will have direct bearing on the arrival and nature of the weather crisis. Once the freeze starts, it will be too late."
Science Digest 1973
"The Ice Age Cometh." ~ 1975 March cover of Science News
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur...
...In the period separating the two long droughts, Dr. Stine said, the water in Mono Lake rose to a level higher than any in the last 150 years, suggesting that the California climate was even wetter then than it is today. The last century and a half, Dr. Stine found, has been the third wettest period in the last three millenniums. But, he said, "the vast majority of years during the past 3,500 years have been much drier than what we've come to expect to be normal in California."...
...In gauging the length and frequency of droughts for planning purposes, California officials rely on a tree-ring study extending back to about 1560. Over that period, the 1928-1934 drought was the longest and worst. The problem, said Dr. Stine, is that the study period includes not only the wet 19th and 20th centuries, but also the even wetter 16th and 17th centuries. "They're using the wettest period of the last 3,000 years to define the duration and severity of the droughts we can expect in the future," he said.
When volcanoes stop erupting, cows stop farting and belching and other natural occurrences that increase CO2 and Methane levels AND "global warming still occurs. Maybe I'll be a believer in this crap
Don’t forget your SUVs! OMG won’t someone think of the kids?
It’s the governments fault that we don’t have national high speed rail and are largely dependent on cars. Don’t get mad now liberals, that every mother drives an SUV to take her kids to soccer practice.
I'm not necessarily a denier, but I do question what we can really do about it.
EXAMPLE: In California, we are absolutely NUTS about climate change. We have Cap & Trade, the AQMD, light rail, bike lanes, a high speed train to nowhere, emission regulations that put companies out of business and NONE of it seems to make any difference. In 2015 our CO2 emissions dropped (drumroll please) .3% .
What's the point in denying climate change anyways?
The definition of denialism is that it is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.
People who deny climate change do so because they're afraid that if they accept the reality and uncomfortable truth of it they will need to make efforts and sacrifices and adaptations that they aren't prepared to make and don't want to think about. Some or all of their sybaritic luxuries and addictions, and some of what they believe are their 'rights' that they've become accustomed to having. All manner of material things and personal ideals that deep down they know aren't actually practical or helpful and may indeed be harmful in the long run. But they want their goodies - to have their cake and eat it too - and don't want to let go of them. So rather than face up to the prospect of what they may stand to lose if they accept the truth of climate change it's so much easier to deny the very thing that will ultimately cause them to lose so very much more anyway because of their denial.
Deniers of climate change are a dying breed though. They're aging and won't be around for too much longer and the younger generations that come after them won't be in a position to deny climate change. They'll be caught up in the thick of it and dealing with it whether they want to or not, they won't have the choice to deny the reality and uncomfortable truth.
Instead of denying science and trying to convince everyone that global warming is a hoax for the sake of corporate interests or religious ideology, why not accept the science but make your case as to why laws and regulations to help combat it aren't a good idea? There are some legitimate cases that can be made on whether or not the benefit of a policy to help curb climate change would actually be effective at all and whether or not the benefit outweighs the cost (be it in terms of the deficit or a hit to the economy). It seems to me that would be more effective than trying to undermine the scientific community. I'm certain several of the responses I get will be stuff like "climate change is a leftist hoax" or something similar. However I am more apt to trust the science since its includes things we can measure over the conservative position that a deity, for whom no proof exists, controls the weather. When it comes to "scientific" reports that cast doubt on climate change, follow the money. Typically it will lead to either some corporation that benefits from lax climate laws or some religious organization.
So for those that support the free market and don't think environmental laws are necessary, why don't you frame your argument that way instead of trying to deny the science?
The climate always changes. AGW is just another liberal method to generate new taxes.
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.
