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 believe it was about 6 weeks ago now that I asked what you needed from us in order to fight 'climate change' and you have yet to tell me one thing you want me to do. I wonder why that is. SCAM.
I believe I did give some suggestions, move to EV's to reduce carbon, Windmills, Solar panels and on a personal level you can install insulation, heat pumps and more energy efficient appliances, walk rather than use your car when possible.
It's silly to claim that NOAA and NASA are part of some scam. I see where NASA's New Horizon space probe is nearing Pluto, but of course what do they know when it comes to Earth's atmosphere. 2nd Tier Scientists compared to top researchers like Guy Barbey!
Some research on the impact of warming and sea level rise:
I believe I did give some suggestions, move to EV's to reduce carbon, Windmills, Solar panels and on a personal level you can install insulation, heat pumps and more energy efficient appliances, walk rather than use your car when possible.
It's silly to claim that NOAA and NASA are part of some scam. I see where NASA's New Horizon space probe is nearing Pluto, but of course what do they know when it comes to Earth's atmosphere. 2nd Tier Scientists compared to top researchers like Guy Barbey!
Some research on the impact of warming and sea level rise:
* Move to EV's to reduce carbon.
Do you realize that most electricity is generated by burning of coal and natural gas?
Do you realize that most people can't afford EV's
Batteries are not recyclable and very costly.
Don't go far enough on charges
Charging station infrastructure isn't practical
Cars are very heavy and might even make existing parking garages and roads, obsolete due to weight.
* Windmills.
One of the bigger scams there is.
Blades are not recyclable and go in landfills.
Require OIL to run! Fact.
Unreliable
Kill birds and marine life
* Solar Panels.
They have a place. I agree here, although also not that environmentally friendly, last 20 years and dumped into landfills.
Agree, put solar panels on new buildings where they make sense.
* More energy efficient appliances
Won't do all that much in the long run.
* Walk rather than use your car when possible.
I already do that.
I believe I did give some suggestions, move to EV's to reduce carbon, Windmills, Solar panels and on a personal level you can install insulation, heat pumps and more energy efficient appliances, walk rather than use your car when possible.
It's silly to claim that NOAA and NASA are part of some scam. I see where NASA's New Horizon space probe is nearing Pluto, but of course what do they know when it comes to Earth's atmosphere. 2nd Tier Scientists compared to top researchers like Guy Barbey!
Some research on the impact of warming and sea level rise:
There is technology in place to remove billions of metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions that would otherwise come from fossil fuels. It's called nuclear fusion. We should have been building standardized modern power plants for years and shutting down the POS 1970 (ish) technologies. We could easily do away with fossil fuels used for electricity. (We will NEVER be able to stop using g all fossil fuels: we need to strike a reasonable balance).
Then, stop with all of the new regulations that make power companies change their plants. i.e., make it affordable by not having 20 different designs by way of cost overruns. It's simply economy of scale. In fact, we could reuse the spent fuel that is in storage.
But, the non-technical tree-huggers and scared politicians are going to push inefficient technologies down our throats. And of course, politicians in coal and natural gas districts are going to vote against it too. Yes, it is a wee bit more involved with trade-offs. But at least the big electrical car push would have a lot more impact.
Next, population control. Educated people are already having fewer kids (under their own replacement). Therefore, I'd also offer free abortions to cultures that cannot keep their you-know-what in their pants. Social welfare programs interfere with Darwin's natural selection and degrade society. It would be a win-win!
EV's to reduce carbon - if the ENTIRE USA switched to EV tomorrow - it is mathematically debatable if the decrease in worldwide "bad" emissions would be 1% or 2% or 0% or maybe worse...so that's a non-starter for me. People tend to overestimate the effect of passenger vehicles. I'm not saying the don't "put out" - I'm saying, they put out very little, in the big scheme of things.
Meantime, other nations have actually INCREASED emissions lately - entirely offsetting any gain by EVs in the US. So, no change, so far.
It's silly to claim that NOAA and NASA are part of some scam
Is it? They need money too. They get money from you - via the gov't. - to study things that get publicity. I don't believe they intentionally produce bad information - I just don't think there's anything in it for them to correct other people's bad information.
Oceans have already warmed, the Carribean reached almost 100 degrees, this summer, not boiling but pretty close. The acidification and warming isn't good for the fisheries.
What does proof look like, what would convince you other than looking in a rear view mirror. Nothing will convince the deniers at this point, they don't back the scientific research because they don't want to change their habits. Deforestation certainly has some impact but the overwhelming evidence is greenhouse gases generated by man over a century. If some ignore the research I would hope oil companies addressing climate change would get their attention.
The oceans and atmosphere are warming at an alarming rate, I have yet to see a valid alternative theory.
So what would convince you?
"What does proof look like"
Our planet changes ALL THE TIME.
Do you think man is responsible for the Ice Age and its demise?
I've posted this before and as usual NOT A SINGLE response from people like you who want to blame man for our climate.
Read to the end... The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post more than a100 years ago. Some of you might remember that article .
Do you think man is responsible for the Ice Age and its demise?
I've posted this before and as usual NOT A SINGLE response from people like you who want to blame man for our climate.
Read to the end... The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post more than a100 years ago. Some of you might remember that article .
You don't understand the difference between a 2 degree warming over a century and the ice age and I'm not about to explain the difference again.
You didn't post the link to your article.
Quote:
As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn't substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.
" Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish And Icebergs Melt The Washington Post (1877-1922); "
I don't know why it has to be so binary on the attitudes. It only became contentious when one party got associated with one point of view. Be that as it may (or may not) - why not first agree on common ground?
1. Is the climate changing in measurable ways? Of course it is - always has, always will.
2. Is less pollution / man-made garbage on the ground, in the water, and in the air, BETTER overall, or WORSE? Most would say that less is better, no?
3. Political agendas exist. That's all. They do exist. It means - it's hard to trust anyone or their motives, either side.
Some more subtle - still true - points:
1. The UN recommendations for ALL nations are NOT NECESSARILY the best for THIS nation (USA);
2. Cost of damages from storms is nearly irrelevant as a measuring tool, as more people live in stormy areas than ever before;
3. Using ancient data - say 200M or 300M years ago or more - is useless - since the continents have moved.
What we disagree on:
1. The RATE of change is Either Natural - or - It Is Not. By "natural" I mean - would have happened if humans never evolved.
2. The exact percent of the CHANGE IN RATE caused by man (if you agree with #1) is not defined. It's not - we can agree on that - unless someone has a link. Not a guess, a range, or an estimate. An exact agreed upon amount.
So - pretty clearly, since we cannot agree on #1 - we will never agree on #2.
We can also agree on THIS - but we won't:
The consequences of a thing are meaningless. Oh, it's painful or expensive or damaging or whatever to x number of species - but that is not evidence that man caused it or can fix it. It's just a consequence of the change - that we can all agree is happening. So no point in using ocean rise, dead polar bears, poor crops, etc. - to prove anything, since those things will happen regardless of who or what is responsible. Those things (consequences) are used as a carrot-and-stick type of thing to force change - change to offset point #1 - upon which we cannot agree.
But we can ALL agree to pollute less. Why is that bad?
It's not bad when we all AGREE to it - but if you force me to do it, I did not agree - ya see the difference?
* Move to EV's to reduce carbon.
Do you realize that most electricity is generated by burning of coal and natural gas?
Do you realize that most people can't afford EV's
Batteries are not recyclable and very costly.
Don't go far enough on charges
Charging station infrastructure isn't practical
Cars are very heavy and might even make existing parking garages and roads, obsolete due to weight.
* Windmills.
One of the bigger scams there is.
Blades are not recyclable and go in landfills.
Require OIL to run! Fact.
Unreliable
Kill birds and marine life
* Solar Panels.
They have a place. I agree here, although also not that environmentally friendly, last 20 years and dumped into landfills.
Agree, put solar panels on new buildings where they make sense.
* More energy efficient appliances
Won't do all that much in the long run.
* Walk rather than use your car when possible.
I already do that.
This is my thinking too. But on EVs. Ok, so the electricity is generated by coal and natural gas. Local coal and natural gas. It makes sense to use local fuels. The problem with coal and natural gas is that it's kinda difficult to run a car on the stuff. Unless of course we use it to generate electricity. That's the great thing about EVs. They allow us to use local fuel and, not having to cart the local fuel all over the country. mine it or extract it and take it straight to the power generating plants. Go EVs!
P.S. I hate EVs. A huge amount of taxpayers money has been wasted subsidizing the things. And now we are in an economic crisis.
...in the meantime .....China is building new coal plants as fast as they can
you all might as well be pizzing in the wind
there is absolutely nothing we can do....to lower CO2....as fast as China is raising it
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.
Social welfare programs interfere with Darwin's natural selection and degrade society.
