Jump to content

Do You Believe in Man-Made Climate Change?


Guest ProudConservative

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Do you have a cite where they say that there's no dissent on climate change ?  That would be something you could complain about.  Now I KNOW you aren't talking about the term "consensus" which is entirely different and acceptable.

People like Biden and Trudeau are calling man made climate change an existential threat. Is that just consensus or is there a second round of carbon taxes getting lubed up (or not) right now for us taxpayers? 

Quote

2) From whom ?  If it was some enviro troll then who cares.  Just like I take the Trump cult's behaviour as somewhat different than the leadership.  Don't follow trolls.

We had the polar bear thing shoved down our throats because CNN and CBC can't let a tragedy go to waste.

"Polar bears are drowning in the open ocean and their babies are starving because WCM drives a car!"

Quote

3) Greta Thunberg isn't a climate scientist... you are starting to muddy the waters here and I am not at all interested in trying to separate out issues with you if you do that.

I'm not accusing you of personally believing that she's an elite climatologist, but you gotta admit, there's nothing worse than trying to watch the news and being subjected to a pontificating, snot-nosed brat.

Quote

Have a just-below-average day :) 

No prob. A 49% day is manageable. I'll get a week's worth of work done (by leftist standards) at that rate :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

 1. You're reacting to somebody who said the Hockey Stick Graph specifically was a hoax not the general idea that climate changes.
2. He was reacting to somebody who claimed he'd changed his mind about climate change because Ontario got warm for awhile.
3. The fallacy of that was pointed out.
4. Climate Changes. Always has. But climate is not weather. In Ontario or BC.
5. That was his point. 

6. Then you appear to be doing that thing where you guys claim to be the ones who own science or something. You post a graph that shows climate changing since the end of the little ice age. Good for you, but nobody denied that.

7. I notice you weren't so quick to post "the data" back when you were doubting the hoax element of the hockey stick graph that goes back to the Medieval Warm Period. Go ahead though Science Guy post your "data" showing how the Medieval Warm Period didn't exist and I'll give you more data than you can choke down showing you it did.

8. In other words this isn't the first time climate has gotten warm. If you have this data showing conclusively that man is responsible for it this time post that. 

1.  2. 3. 4. Ok.  I can accept that I got the foundations of his argument wrong, then.
5. I took "the exact same things" to change climate for 100,000 years to NOT be CO2 and solar forcing, but maybe I am wrong.
6. Well... ok... 
7. The Medieval Warm period exists but is still being studied.  The existence of a MWP doesn't mean anything like human-caused warming is in doubt.
8. No it's not.

Look - I may have got the steps wrong but certainly not the conclusion.  You and the other poster are saying "climate changes all the time" (I think).  If I'm guilty of not reading posts too closely then I'm sorry but it's pretty forgiveable for me to scroll down to the conclusion and determine that people think that human-caused climate change is a "hoax".


It's not though.
1. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperatures.  We can reproduce this in a lab
2. Increased temperatures through history have been caused by CO2 levels and solar levels.
3. Humans have been producing CO2 at increasing levels, and the temperature increases are correlated to it.

Now the only reasonable conclusion, and the overwhelming consensus, is that humans are causing climate change.

What to do about it, if anything, is a separate question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

... the connection between the hysteria and the data or lack of it that's supposed to support it.

I don't think my post was hysterical, merely some observations and a conclusion.

I don't know why conservatives lose their shit over Greta.  I think that they hate hopey-feely messaging.  Ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1. People like Biden and Trudeau are calling man made climate change an existential threat. Is that just consensus or is there a second round of carbon taxes getting lubed up (or not) right now for us taxpayers? 

2. We had the polar bear thing shoved down our throats because CNN and CBC can't let a tragedy go to waste.

"Polar bears are drowning in the open ocean and their babies are starving because WCM drives a car!"

3. I'm not accusing you of personally believing that she's an elite climatologist, but you gotta admit, there's nothing worse than trying to watch the news and being subjected to a pontificating, snot-nosed brat.

4. No prob. A 49% day is manageable. I'll get a week's worth of work done (by leftist standards) at that rate :D

1. That's politics.  I haven't talked about the politics here and since politics is 99% messaging obviously there's nothing we can agree on there.
2. More politics.
3. Are you the guy who posted that he got actually angry and HATED Justin Trudeau when you saw him at Remembrance Day ?  Seems to me that you get mad watching TV... I don't know how to help you with that.  I'm only talking about a common problem.  Remember the ozone hole ?  That was a problem and it got solved.
4. I don't measure a good day by how much I get done.  I measure it by how groovy my scooter felt and my vegan tea was as I scooted down to the welfare office to pick up my love cheque.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think my post was hysterical, merely some observations and a conclusion.

I don't know why conservatives lose their shit over Greta.  I think that they hate hopey-feely messaging.  Ok.

I didn't say your post was hysterical. I referred to this in your post:

Quote

3) Greta Thunberg isn't a climate scientist... you are starting to muddy the waters here and I am not at all interested in trying to separate out issues with you if you do that.

Here's the way it works the insinuated claim of those supporting the idea a catastrophe is coming as a result of man's use of fossil fuels is they are exclusive holders of all pertinent data and what they call "THE Science." However although you don't think so there is a data driven debate with 2 sides. But  out of the claim there is no debate spins the unsupported hysteria of Gore and Greta.  Pretty much all of Gore's claims have been proven to be nonsense and Greta doesn't even bother trying to present support. She's a kid. But we're supposed to take them seriously...except when we're supposed to pretend they're not leading the charge. 

The deception of the whole thing is outlined pretty clearly is the posted video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD_QatUHUgU&feature=emb_logo

Speaking of Greta and Climate Hysterics have you heard of extinction rebellion?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-48003955

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperatures.  We can reproduce this in a lab

True it can be done. Did you ever see the one though where Gore had to cheat because he couldn't make the experiment work? That was funny.

Seriously though, it's pretty much agreed you can get 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2. The problem is that isn't enough to create the kind of catastrophe you need to justify Greta and Extinction Rebellion's climate hysterics. 

So what they do is they introduce the possibility of positive feedbacks. There is no experiment you can reproduce in the lab to show that.

Some were suggesting increases as high as a 9 degree per doubling increase from positive feedbacks. Actual science not "THE science" pretty much debunked that so in the last report the IPCC winnowed their claim down to 2 degrees per doubling.

Even if true it's debatable how much catastrophe that could cause. But CNN founder, Ted Turner's prophecy of the last scattered humans eating each other at the South Pole becomes even more laughable.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. I didn't say your post was hysterical.

2. the insinuated claim of those supporting the idea a catastrophe is coming as a result of man's use of fossil fuels is they are exclusive holders of all pertinent data and what they call "THE Science." However although you don't think so there is a data driven debate with 2 sides. But  out of the claim there is no debate spins the unsupported hysteria of Gore and Greta. 

3. Pretty much all of Gore's claims have been proven to be nonsense 

1. I know

2. You're talking about politics now.  I have nothing to say about Thunberg here.  But to say that there are 2 sides without saying there's a consensus is misleading.

3. Pretty much all?  I think Gore's message appeared at the beginning of the backlash against liberal morality and he became an early figurehead in the culture war.  I never heard anyone say that almost all his claims were nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. There is no experiment you can reproduce in the lab to show that.

2. Some were suggesting increases as high as a 9 degree per doubling increase from positive feedbacks. Actual science not "THE science" pretty much debunked that so in the last report the IPCC winnowed their claim down to 2 degrees per doubling.

1. Agree that there's no lab that can accurately simulate the atmosphere of Earth.

2. Probably best to cite changes in the models and predictions over time.  I have seen this process grossly misrepresented so I am skeptical.

Also, if you are upset with the moral persuasion tactics used by Gore, Thunberg etc. then you probably should leave them out of the discussion right?

I mean, you think it's wrong to try to skew a scientific discussion that way, so just leave it out of your argument too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

I suggest you still don't know.

Well, sure.  It's not surprising that I don't know  Regardless.  If putting an emotional/moral aspect into it disgusts someone so much, and they want to focus on the science only... then an aggravated response is equally emotional and should just be left out.

I do think that much of the culture war is a reaction to the corporate-liberal persona that these messages are designed for.  If you're not in that middle demographic then it's revolting.   Just like the cultural tropes of the new populists are revolting to people who were bought into the system pre 1980.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. You're talking about politics now. 

It's convenient for you to say you're not concerned with that when it becomes inconvenient, but take the politics out and what do you have to discuss?

Are you pushing the idea a  catastrophe is eminent as a result of fossil fuels and you have "The Science" that shows that beyond debate. Because if you are you just got political. You're with the types demanding a political solution.

If you are taking the more reasonable position that evidence how much warming there is from anthropocentric causes and how much added warmth is produces requires further study before we pretend we know the answer and currently there is no real evidence any possible ill effects of too much nice weather poses any real threat to the world at large then you're for giving it as much political attention as you would say a possible asteroid strike. 

If you're choosing the first option then I request you make your best data driven, Scientific method supported case for it.

If you're with me on the second one then who cares, and yeah those "sky is falling, we must run and tell the king" types don't matter much. They only matter in so far as they're able to bother the rest of us by bringing unnecessary government taxes and restrictions down on us. So that needs to be discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. It's convenient for you to say you're not concerned with that when it becomes inconvenient, but take the politics out and what do you have to discuss?

2. Are you pushing the idea a  catastrophe is eminent as a result of fossil fuels and you have "The Science" that shows that beyond debate. Because if you are you just got political. You're with the types demanding a political solution.

3. If you are taking the more reasonable position that evidence how much warming there is from anthropocentric causes and how much added warmth is produces requires further study ...

If you're with me on the second one then who cares, and yeah those "sky is falling, we must run and tell the king" types don't matter much. They only matter in so far as they're able to bother the rest of us by bringing unnecessary government taxes and restrictions down on us. So that needs to be discussed.

1. What a strange admission.  I don't remember, are you a Trump person ?  That would explain your assertion that there isn't objective reality out there.
2. I don't agree that I 'got political' because the science requires us to act.  And, yes, solutions on this scale overlap with politics but we have to first agree that human-caused warming is a thing.  That's what I came to discuss.
3. No, I disagree based on the scale of the problem and mostly the obviousness of it.
4. You want to discuss the politics but I don't think you should if you don't think there's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in toronto and i too remember alot more snow as a kid in the winters, and colder too,,,

 

i believe climate change is in big part happening due to mans impact on the planet.

Astronaut Chris Hatfield said in a documentary he used to have trouble taking pictures of rain forests from space because of the clouds that always covered over the rain forests ... clouds look white from space and reflect alot of suns hot rays back out into space,,, with tremendous amount of deforestation for logging and cattle, those clouds are not there anymore to reflect the sun. So vast open spaces of ground are left open to the suns rays to heat up. If you ever seen vast stretches of farm land in Canada then just imagine reflective cloud cover that vast going away forever as similar sized stretches of rain forest are cut down to make room for cattle and industrial farming.

The documentary was called "one strange rock" link below

https://onestrangerock.com/

 

But i also think other things created by man are too causing or adding to climate change, emissions from cars factories, possibly methane from cattle and meat industry.

all these together are having a accumulative effect i think. now even tundra per-ma frost is thawing which is giving out lots more methane , so its becoming an exponential growth now, faster and faster things are getting worse.

and yes i too think that a natural cyclical rhythm of the earth could also be at play too, meaning that we may have been do naturally for some planet warming . But i do think that what man has contributed to climate change has definitely thrown the planet off any natural cycle that may have been due .

 

extinction of species , mass deforestation,,,,

We have wrecked the bloody place well before its time. and its all basically been done during our lifetime  a span of about 80 years. wow some legacy we leave.  :(

i hate to say it but  unlike a hopeful David Attenbough i do not see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Jacques-Yves Cousteau warned us about over-fished dying seas back in the early 70's and nobody listened to his warnings then, so why would mankind start listening and changing his ways now when the end is near.

greed, corruption, destruction, its all mankind knows best  !

yours B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2021 at 10:42 PM, brett 1 said:

We have wrecked the bloody place well before its time. and its all basically been done during our lifetime  a span of about 80 years. wow some legacy we leave.

Yes there has been a lot of man made change in the last 80 years.  Of course the man made solutions are more recent. Man is now working on building a pipeline across Africa (the Trans African Pipeline) to bring water to the Sahara desert, and make it green again, planting trees, and producing crops. This is an east west pipeline, but the same could be done with north south pipelines if TAP is a success.  Work is being done on carbon capture with algae, producing biodegradable plastics and fuels, and of course taking carbon dioxide out of the air, and putting oxygen into it. Efforts are now being made to farm sea weed taking carbon out of the ocean, and putting oxygen back, reducing the dead zones, and reversing the acidification of the seas. All is not lost, good people are doing good things, and we will get better at it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my first post here on this site ever. 

So ask for patience as I slowly get my feet wet as they say…. 

I guess I am in the camp that says ‘Climate Change is real.’ 

But my concern/confusion about this issue comes from both a political and religious standpoint. 

In particular, I am concerned that this issue is being used as Trojan Horse by those with nefarious 

Intensions. 

What these intentions are….I am still trying to work out. 

Anyone else with these concerns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2021 at 10:21 AM, The Messenger said:

I guess I am in the camp that says ‘Climate Change is real.’ 

But my concern/confusion about this issue comes from both a political and religious standpoint. 

Of course climate change is real. The climate is constantly changing. When I was in school people were afraid of another ice age, because it killed the dinosaurs. It was later discovered that the world was warming, and that became the worst possible outcome, and would be the demise of the human race. The world has been warming for 14,000 years since the last ice age. The warming of the earth has been beneficial for mankind, and has let us advance from hunter gatherers into farmers, and allowed us to make permanent settlements instead of being nomadic people following prey animals. It allowed us to support the scholars, engineers and scientists that have built the society that we enjoy today. We are in the sweet spot now, and the earths population has increased from 7 million at the end of the last ice age to now over 7 billion.

There have been problems of course, and our appetite for energy has resulted in the burning of huge amounts of carbon releasing it into the atmosphere speeding up this warming of the earth. In the late 1980s there became a general consensus among the world's scientists that we needed  to address the problems that  were resulting from this. Many environmentalists took up the torch, and tried to make people aware of this need for change. Many others jumped on the band wagon mostly spreading despair, and trying to make people feel guilty. Others started looking for solutions. Technology was developed to scrub emissions from smoke stacks, carbon capture was developed using chemical means, and the use of algae to take carbon out of the air, and put oxygen back in. Programs of planting trees were supported, and renewable energy was encouraged. Farming seaweed in shallow ocean waters to remove carbon reducing the acidification of the oceans, and increasing sea life was introduced. There is a project (the Trans African Pipeline) to reclaim much of the northern Sahara planting trees, and providing fresh water that will allow the area to grow food to feed the hungry. 

Man is the only animal capable of making beneficial climate change, and progress toward that goal is progressing.

As far as religion is concerned, there are many hundreds of religions, mostly contradictory, meaning that most of them must be wrong. I hope that you have found the true one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oops said:

 

1. When I was in school people were afraid of another ice age, because it killed the dinosaurs.

 

2. There have been problems of course, and our appetite for energy has resulted in the burning of huge amounts of carbon releasing it into the atmosphere speeding up this warming of the earth.

1. Yes, but interestingly we were more naive back then even without the internet.  Mass media didn't think to ask the scientists.  If they had, they would have had to retract.  But climate concerns and disinformation were not remotely threatening at the time.

2. And so here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for responding to my post oops and allowing me to join this very interesting topic about ‘Climate Change.’ 

In many ways, I agree with your assertion that the ‘climate is always changing.’ I too have always seen the climate as something that is always in flux. We can affect it and so can natural phenomena as well. 

I have to admit that my first post on this topic was not very clear. I personally have moved on from the debate over whether or not the human race is the driving force behind the statistical rise in temperature that has been recorded over the past two decades or so. 

The debate for many may not be settled, but for me, I recognize the fact that there is a great push by many to make ‘Climate Change’ the defining issue of our times. Now let me be honest with everyone who reads this post. I personally see the Covid-19 virus as the real threat to humanity. Yet for me, there is still something far more troubling on the horizon when it comes to this issue of ‘Climate Change.’ 

Since it is easier to talk about one topic at a time, I will focus on the political confusion I have for the moment and leave the topic of religion on the back burner for now. 

My confusion in regard to the inclusion of ‘Climate Change’ in political discourse and policy, can be summed up with one simple question…. 

Can anyone tell me what GREEN is? 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he believes in a GREEN future. 

The Conservative leader Erin O’Toole has been quoted that he also sees the benefits of GREEN. 

The NDP talk of their own GREEN plans and promote the Leap Manifesto. 

And of Course there is the GREEN Party of Canada. 

GREEN is even found in corporate tax filings and academic research…. 

So what is GREEN?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2021 at 10:23 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. What a strange admission.  I don't remember, are you a Trump person ?  That would explain your assertion that there isn't objective reality out there.
2. I don't agree that I 'got political' because the science requires us to act.  And, yes, solutions on this scale overlap with politics but we have to first agree that human-caused warming is a thing.  That's what I came to discuss.
3. No, I disagree based on the scale of the problem and mostly the obviousness of it.
4. You want to discuss the politics but I don't think you should if you don't think there's a problem.

1, You know damned well I'm pro Trump. In fact, wasn't it on a Trump thread that you swore you'd never talk to me again? Objective reality? I'm all for it when you can show it. For example I believe there is such a thing as a man and a women. I don't recognize any proven climate sensitivity beyond 1 degree per doubling, I believe it is an objective fact that Marxists are behind BLM and Antifa and they have instigated violence and vandalism across America. I believe there is statistical and other evidence challenging the idea of "institutional racism." I believe in all kinds of fact resident stuff and I also have an opinion: like for instance on this idea that you and yours are the masters of all and only fact and evidence, my opinion is that's laughable crap.

And speaking of crap your other 3 points are also full of it. If you want to talk science, talk it, don't just tell me how superior you would be on it if you ever got around to discussing it.

If you have this "objective" evidence of "the scale of the problem," let's see it. Let's see how "obvious it is.

As to this idea you have that you can stop people noticing how politics are interwoven into this climate issue by demanding it, good luck with that. I can see why you wouldn't want anybody noticing it though. Speaking of obvious...

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Messenger said:

So what is GREEN?

Green is the colour of the chlorophyll which plants use to convert the sun's light into energy. It is the building block of all life, and gives the green colour to grass and leaves. It is used as symbol of a healthy environment.

Religion and covid19 have their own topics  elsewhere on the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. You know damned well I'm pro Trump.
2. In fact, wasn't it on a Trump thread that you swore you'd never talk to me again?
3. Objective reality? I'm all for it when you can show it.
 

1. I suppose so.  I may not have remembered that when I posted this though.
2. I don't remember that, no.
3. Ok, well climate change is objectively measurable and as certain as you can be about such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. One might debate the accuracy of the measurement and mock the idea you can project or
2. even measure human forced influence on the change and predict inevitable crises from it though.
3. And again if you have this objective evidence of what you call "the scale of the problem," let's see it.

1. Why mock ?  The mocking probably comes from your dislike of the "Caring Progressive" personality.  Ok fine, and they mock you too.  Now maybe people can get to the matter at hand... which is...

2. It's enough to measure temperature increase.

3. The temperature graph.  Never mind the political arena, look at the risk that this poses.  It makes sense to at least get a framework in place to deal with it.  Most seem to think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...