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 08-09-2021, 12:31 PM
 
Location: TPA
6,476 posts, read 6,412,983 times
Reputation: 4863

Advertisements

What is happening: people, who aren't scientists, wont listen to scientists and climatologists about something that's actually their job and theyve spent years researching, and they'd rather listen to politicians because somehow politicians are more trustworthy. And they dont understand that jobs will not be lost and the economy will not be crashed because the world will always need energy. And folks are burying their head in the sand and use excuses like "earth gets hot on its own", because they will be dead by then so it doesn't concern them personally.

What is also happening: big corporations are bribing people, including politicians, and are spreading misinformation that has saturated generations of minds for decades in the name of profit because they also: can spend their money now, and will be dead later when the actual problems happen.

What people have convinced themselves is happening: "the woke left" or whoever, has somehow used their (much smaller than oil profits) funding to collude and persuade 90% of the world scientists to all say we're in trouble simply to: destroy the economy, give the government control, take away freedom, etc, etc...

Not sure what scientists gain from "destroying the world economy", especially when their jobs dont revolve around them making money, unlike, IDK, oil executives. And not sure how this amounts to government control when: the US isnt even the worlds biggest polluter. Also kind of an oxymoron how people will listen to politicians over scientists, but swear the government just wants to take us over. People brag on our big, bad military, but if the government actually wanted to take citizens over...wouldn't they just use that same military? Wouldn't that be easier than publishing climate change reports urging we build more hydro plants and wind turbines?...

I feel sorry for my eventual grandchildren, unless our attitudes can change, which they probably wont until, you know.

 
Old 08-09-2021, 12:32 PM
 
25,427 posts, read 9,747,465 times
Reputation: 15258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
I didnt ask that.
I know all about politicians and what can be done to manipulate. My point is I look at a number of different scientific sources and compare data.
 
Old 08-09-2021, 12:34 PM
 
7,293 posts, read 4,077,608 times
Reputation: 4670
Quote:
Originally Posted by RhodyRepub View Post
So?

What is your completely neutral and un-politically fettered source?

How about you open your mind and look at the facts, instead of trying to shut down anyone you disagree with.

Must be a Lefty.
Seems like you're trying to shut down the climate change discussion by offering up information from sources paid for by the fossil fuel industry.

Must be a Righty.
 
Old 08-09-2021, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,661 posts, read 23,982,865 times
Reputation: 14992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli34 View Post
It’s not about reducing our quality of life, but in taking the lead in developing technology to ween us off fossil fuels…but instead China is taking the lead on that….and we will be buying their products.
We already take the lead. China copies everything. They do very little innovating on their own.

We develop the tech, but our environmental and labor laws prevent us from competing with China to produce it. So we either license it to them or they steal it, but either way, it's manufacturing where China leads, not innovation, and the environmental lobby is, ironically, largely responsible for that.

Getting off fossil fuels REQUIRES a reduction in the quality of life. You're a fool if you believe anything different. The amount of energy stored in carbon fuels makes everything other than nuclear look like a joke, and it would probably shock you to discover how much energy goes into producing the things you use every day, including your food. From manufacturing to transportation to agriculture, fossil fuels are what make the life you experience possible. Take them away and you WILL dramatically affect your quality of life.

I'm not saying we shouldn't innovate, but you can't discard reality in favor of the dream. Work toward the dream, but be awake and in the real world while you do it.
 
Old 08-09-2021, 12:36 PM
 
2,378 posts, read 1,302,971 times
Reputation: 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
I’ve never posted here about climate change because I figured it was pointless. However, given the extreme weather occurring constantly and the predictions of climate scientists largely being true, it’s hard to read a post like this and not reply. I know a lot of members on this site feel the same way, but this goes beyond politics. This is about our one and only home.

The quoted post represents the view of many climate change deniers and it never fails to blow my mind that anyone could think this way. I am tired of hearing this noxious argument and here are two reasons why it is a dumb and irresponsible viewpoint in the climate change debate:

1. Sure, the climate has change drastically in the history of this planet. However, during the Holocene era, which started about 11,500 years ago, the climate has been remarkably stable, in a kind of Goldilocks zone for human growth and development. It’s no coincidence that many anthropologists and historians believe that agriculture and domestication of animals for agriculture occurred about 10,000 years ago. The Earth has gone from a roiling cauldron of magma to something resembling a giant snowball, and millions of species have existed and died out in the planet’s four billion year history.

The point is that we humans were not there to experience those climate extremes and never would have survived them. Before the Holocene, there weren’t that many of us, we were scattered across the continents, living in small hunter-gatherer bands, and real population growth only started to occur when the climate reached the Goldilocks zone that had the right conditions and stability for agriculture to become sustainable, leading to the development of civilization as we know it.

So, yeah…the Earth is going to be just fine with a warming climate. The Earth has seen it all and survived it all. However, the same is not true for us. Humans have built a global system of commerce that depends on climate stability and has only known a relatively stable climate. Once that starts to break down because of climate change - and we don’t really know when or what the tipping point will be - human civilization will be snuffed out extremely fast. It has been estimated that 90% of the population would be dead within a year of a global blackout, mostly due to starvation, exposure, and lack of access to health care. A climate catastrophe would fundamentally alter our existence, and our global economy has no ability to respond to such drastic change.

The Earth’s climate has changed a lot in its four billion years. Does that mean we can survive a drastic change that occurs in a relatively short period of time? No, it does not. If we continue down our current path, the consequences have been spelled out in detail and we are already starting to see them.

2. This notion that humans are but a mosquito on the Earth’s back, and nothing we do could have any meaningful effect on such a large planet is the view that only someone deaf, dumb, and blind could possibly entertain.

In order to prove my point, I’m going to cite a single example of a time when human industry drastically altered one of the Earth’s most important systems, and recognized the damage, then came together to repair the damage fairly quickly by taking swift collective action. That system was the ozone layer, and scientists noticed in the 1970’s that a large whole in this layer was forming over Antarctica and Australia. This was a problem because the ozone layer protects us from harmful UV rays in addition to all kinds of important functions we may not even be aware of. Pretty quickly, scientists determined that the culprit was primarily a group of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons that were responsible. Our use of these chemicals in industrial processes as well as in consumer products had to stop if we were to get a handle on the rapidly growing hole. And that time, we actually did it. We came together and trusted the scientists, stopped using the chemicals causing the problems, and the ozone layer is almost completely healed.

That story is useful because it illustrates two things: how human activity can have a direct impact on the planet and its systems and how collective human action can fix problems our activity and technology has caused. Those two words right there - activity and technology - are the most important ones in debunking the idea that humans cant possibly have any effect on such a large planet. If we were talking about humans on their own, acting without any tools or technology, this would probably be true. However, humans have created technology and industry that has massive, visible effects on the planet and our climate. This is self-evident and to argue the opposite requires a level of selective blindness that is staggering.

Do you know that humans can seed clouds that create rain? Dubai just did it and was hit with a deluge it wasn’t prepared for.

In Manitoba, one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world is on the verge of death because of industrial agriculture and its runoff. Take a look at it on Google Maps. You’ll notice that it’s green. That isn’t the natural color of the water; it’s from algeal blooms that feed on the phosphorus contained in the runoff, choking the life out of the lake and turning it to sludge.

Large sections of the world’s largest living organism - the Great Barrier Reef - have bleached and become dead zones because of warming water.

Not long ago, the US redirected and then dammed the Colorado River to turn the desert of Southern California into a vast vista of farms? Is that not an example of humans affecting the Earth’s climate with their technology with their technology?

If that’s not good enough for you let’s look at some more examples: Human machinery has destroyed so much of the Amazon rainforest that it is now a net emitter of carbon instead of the giant carbon sink it used to be.

There’s also Chernobyl, where human technology made a large swathe of the Ukraine uninhabitable to humans. As most of us learned from HBOs excellent film ‘Chernobyl,’ it could have been much worse, had the corium melted through to the full water tanks. In that case, it was estimated that large portions of Europe would have become uninhabitable to humans. With all the nuclear plants on this Earth, the planet’s environment could hypothetically be changed overnight if they were all allowed to melt down. The Earth would survive, but we would not.

Long before humans had gasoline-powered machinery, entire ecosystems were changed by hand. Vast swamps were drained to build St. Petersburg; England chopped down all its forests and converted the land into farms. The list of pre-industrial feats where humans used simple tools to make dramatic changes to their environment could fill pages.

But it isn’t those things causing the climate change that could lead to the end of hi,an civilization. It is the massive industrial systems we have created to transform ecosystems practically overnight. To think that thousands upon thousands of chimneys and car exhausts belching greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere 24/7 would have no negative effect on the Earth because humans are just too small and insignificant is a notion that can be disputed with a simple Google search. In science, there is almost never 100% agreement about any topic. Climate change caused by human industry has such a high % of agreement among scientists that it should be considered settled. It is settled.

And now we are starting to learn that the scientists were being optimistic with their predictions. I don’t understand it. If there were even a 50% chance that our industrial methods were leading us to alter the Earth’s climate in ways that would make our lives much harder, it would seem prudent to make some changes. Earth is our home and it’s the only one we got. Instead, 97%-98% of climate scientists are unequivocal and we can see and feel the effects ourselves. That includes NASA. Is NASA now suspect?

I don’t know why people are so reluctant to listen to the experts and push the government to get serious about climate change. It is going to make our lives harder and it is going to mean that our grandchildren may not have much of a life to look forward to. The bloody Gulf Stream is nearing collapse and everyone just carries on like everything’s normal. After all, it’s just weather and how can us tiny humans possibly change the climate of such a large planet?
Is there a shortened version of your screed? There is not a point you posted that is evidence of man-made climate change.

97% of climate scientists do not believe that there is man caused climate change.
 
Old 08-09-2021, 12:39 PM
 
7,817 posts, read 2,882,732 times
Reputation: 4883
Quote:
Originally Posted by AguaDulce View Post
Seems like you're trying to shut down the climate change discussion by offering up information from sources paid for by the fossil fuel industry.

Must be a Righty.

Seems like you think relying on electric cars that depend on Chinese child labor for their cobalt batteries, and solar panels that depend on tons of Chinese coal, gives you the moral high ground.


Seems like you don't know that under Trump, our carbon emissions were the lowest they've been since the 1950s.


Seems like you're a Lefty.
 
Old 08-09-2021, 12:39 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Gilead
12,716 posts, read 7,778,210 times
Reputation: 11328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyfinestbxtf View Post
Is there a shortened version of your screed? There is not a point you posted that is evidence of man-made climate change.

97% of climate scientists do not believe that there is man caused climate change.
The only people who don't believe in human-induced climate change are fundamentalist Christians and people who stand to gain financially from the status quo. That's it. Even the latter group is starting to bend as the evidence becomes too overwhelming to deny. The former will continue to say it's all a sign Jesus is coming back, but Christians have been saying that for thousands of years and it seems foolish to stake humanity's future on that.
 
Old 08-09-2021, 12:42 PM
 
7,293 posts, read 4,077,608 times
Reputation: 4670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyfinestbxtf View Post
97% of climate scientists do not believe that there is man caused climate change.
This is wildly inaccurate.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...0happening.%22


Incidentally, the conclusions of the IPCC are consensus results of a committee with thousands of contributors.
 
Old 08-09-2021, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,625 posts, read 26,307,471 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli34 View Post
If you don’t trust the information coming from scientists active in their research and studies…..then who do you trust? Talk show host Sean Hannity? The real estate mogul Donald Trump? The Republican politicians? What gives them the authority on this subject manner…..because they are on TV and sound like they know what they are talking about?

Hal Lewis
 
Old 08-09-2021, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,661 posts, read 23,982,865 times
Reputation: 14992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
... it would likely still take about 10 years for the climate changes we're seeing happening now to start to slow down to a more normal and natural rate that's easier for the rest of nature to adjust and adapt to.
I keep starting sentences, but then deleting them. I can't quite find the words to describe what I think of the above. It's so... lacking. In understanding. Of everything. If this is representative of how the average person thinks, then I completely understand the climate hysteria. It finally makes sense.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:05 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