Jump to content

The Folly of Ignoring Climate Change


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

CO2 is a trace gas in atmosphere to begin with and man's contribution is only 3% of that miniscule amount. 

Bullshit. The remaining 97% is biological CO2 which is continually RECYCLED and DOES NOT contribute significantly to the increases SEEN in the atmosphere.

You're just posting more ignorant fossil fuel industry lies.

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The total CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 PPM.  Of that Canada's fossil fuel contribution is about 0.18 PPM, next to nothing.  The chances of man being the cause of climate change is negligible enough to say non-existent.

^More BS.

Carbon dioxide now more than 50% higher than pre-industrial levels

Quote
How much CO2 is in the atmosphere in 2022?
 
Image result for co2 concentration in atmosphere
 
Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA's Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego announced ...Jun 3, 2022

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Roger Revelle was Gore's professor at Harvard and a climate expert who discovered how CO2 follows a seasonal cycle with a significant upwards component.

No evidence for the other conclusions YOU'VE drawn.

https://spectator.com.au/2021/04/revealed-al-gores-real-climate-catastrophe/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

Just more evidence that many scientists must be wacked out on some drug.

quote

Scientists have revealed that an ancient shark with paired spines and bony armor may be humans’ earliest ancestor. The Paleozoic fossil was retrieved from a site in Shiqian County in Guizhou Province, South China. With the finding, scientists have come to understand the existence of human sharks.    unquote

Humans Are Descended From Sharks, Scientists Reveal (msn.com)

Darwinism or Evolutionism has been strongly debunked in various books.  The transitional fossils just are not there;  they don't exist to show evolution from one species to another.  But occasionally some scientist or paleontologist finds some bones of something and uses it to fabricate a fantastic story.  These are useful to make a name for one's self and get funding.  But they don't add anything to the subject.  They do however confuse a lot more people who are borderline confused already.

Just goes to show you can't believe everything you hear or read.

human shark.jpg

Evolution is fact. When the Good Lord created our world, evolution was His tool. It’s described precisely word for word in Genesis.
But this has nothing to do with the climate.  

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Thing is, not 100 out of 100 are in agreement. There are doubters and those that will show their evidence against it..   http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

I am not going to carry on with you as you seem to be one of those evangelists and they turn me off and I tune out.

No insult. You sound like those anti vaxxers in rthe other threads with your posts to me. I just do not want to be preached to, by anyone, for anything. I have no entanglement.

I will say one last time , I do believe there is climate change.

THAT IS YOUR SOURCE. YOU CHOSE IT. THIS IS WHAT THEY SAY:

The data clearly indicates global warming is happening and is human caused. 

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths

 

What’s more, you obviously did not read the “31,000 scientists” article that you linked, which says, “To participate in the petition one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not.”

 

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rebound said:

THAT IS YOUR SOURCE. YOU CHOSE IT. THIS IS WHAT THEY SAY:

The data clearly indicates global warming is happening and is human caused. 

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths

 

What’s more, you obviously did not read the “31,000 scientists” article that you linked, which says, “To participate in the petition one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not.”

 

You know, I have to do this again  "I will say one last time , I do believe there is climate change. "

This discussion/debate/conversation can easily become a my link is bigger than your link bun fight.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index

I have said my piece. All I am saying is there is opposing sides to this topic. Trying to prove otherwise is a futile attempt at one upmanship.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You know, I have to do this again  "I will say one last time , I do believe there is climate change. "

This discussion/debate/conversation can easily become a my link is bigger than your link bun fight.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index

I have said my piece. All I am saying is there is opposing sides to this topic. Trying to prove otherwise is a futile attempt at one upmanship.

 

Yes, there is an opposing side: The petroleum and coal industries.  They have spent hundreds of millions to create doubt about climate change, because protecting the environment is bad for their business. They could have spent this money on the R&D that could make them energy technology leaders, but instead they wasted it on the old tech they’re pushing. 
 

If you look at any of the anti global warming “think tanks” like American Enterprise Institute, etc, you’ll find Exxon’s money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Yes, there is an opposing side: The petroleum and coal industries.  They have spent hundreds of millions to create doubt about climate change, because protecting the environment is bad for their business. They could have spent this money on the R&D that could make them energy technology leaders, but instead they wasted it on the old tech they’re pushing. 
 

If you look at any of the anti global warming “think tanks” like American Enterprise Institute, etc, you’ll find Exxon’s money. 

Please stop being the climate change evangelist at me.

I know your stance and I have told you numerous times of what I believe. I do not care about your stance.

You are being like those guys that keep coming to the door pushing Watchtower and Awake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. See this is why it's kind of pointless to give a Progressive both sides when they ask for a cite. 

2.They'll only read the side that favors them then strut around like they're all of a sudden experts on the issue you just told them about a post ago.

3. I think the problem now is you don't understand the difference between a program and the model it creates.

Climate models happen when a program parses data into readable predictions of what to expect when conditions meet the programmed structure. Models make predictions. Programs create them.

So now do you understand what the first cite I gave  you was saying? Or are you still locked into only considering the one I generously gave you showing Hansen's denial after the prediction of an ice age didn't happen.

 

12 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

4. Here the fist cite again so you can actually read it this time:

"

"Hansen’s climate model says ice age to occur by 2021, ‘no need to worry about CO2’

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/flashback-hansens-climate-model-says.html

Flashback from the Washington Times, July 9, 1971, a NASA scientist using a “computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen” predicted an ice age would occur within 50-60 years. According to Hansen’s computer model, “they found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere.”

5. Here's a question for you. If a glacial ice age did happen do you think Hansen would be denying that the model his program created worked?

1. Labelling me anything 'progressive' or 'dummy' as you called me a few posts back, doesn't help your argument.  From my point of view I identify as CONSERVATIVE because I believe in open debate, and examination of facts as they are presented by our trusted institutions.  
2. Because I take my efforts here seriously, I went back to double check to verify that YES I did read it.  Here is the excerpt from the article you posted which makes it even clearer that Hansen wasn't developing models about earth's climate:

""they also had available a computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen there to study the optical properties of the clouds of Venus""

"They" being the researchers who developed the theory and the paper.

3. Hansen's program was likely one of several inputs into what they were doing.  If Hansen himself was developing the whole model (and not just the part about light defraction that he provided) then why wasn't his name on the paper ?  These are questions I ask honestly.

4. Yes, that is the claim.  Then Hansen refuted that with reasons.  The article that is underneath the claim has elements that cast doubt on the claim also.  Just because somebody wrote a text on blogger, doesn't mean it's supported.

5. I don't think he would be getting much credit, since he wasn't even an author of the paper.  If an ice age "did happen" (not enough time but ok...) or signs of an ice age were happening, Hansen like all scientists would have published papers to investigate it, come to conclusions etc.

 

As long as we're in the realm of science, not media or whatnot, there's really no doubt what's happening with climate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Evolution is fact. When the Good Lord created our world, evolution was His tool. It’s described precisely word for word in Genesis.
 

Evolution has been debunked and is rejected by many scientists.  The simple truth is Evolution is not science. It never was.  Evolution is a theory and a religion with many.  The fact is there never has been any proof of evidence.  The most important evidence which is the fossil record does not support evolution.  If evolution were true, there would be a vast fossil record in the earth's layers showing the transition between the different species.  Guess what?  It does not exist.  The transitional fossils do not exist because there was no evolution.

All that exists are fossils of the different species which shows no evolution or transition between them.  

God says in his word how he created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day.  There was no millions of years of evolution.  I know there are many people who believe in it, but they are rejecting the literal account.  God would not have said how he literally created everything in six days if it were not a fact.  It was a supernatural miracle.  God does not lie.  The correct interpretation is literal. One must interpret the Bible literally unless there is clear reason something is not meant to be taken literally.  Genesis is not one of those sections.

Have you ever read Genesis.  You said it is described precisely word for word in Genesis.

"31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."  Genesis 1:31 KJV   There it is word for word,  six days.

What does this have to do with climate change?   The answer is plenty.  It proves many atheist scientists who believe the lie of evolution also believe in the lie of man-made climate change.  They have not studied it and for most of them, it is not even their field of study.  But they still claim it as fact, when there is no proof.   Man-made climate change, like the theory of evolution, has not been proven.   It is just another theory which many have embraced and claim as fact.  

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You are making no point here.

The simple truth is that Al Gore was a policy-maker, not a scientist. The scientists are overwhelmingly clear on the issue. 
 

Forget About Global Warming.

What matters is that America will not be competitive if we do not invest in a renewable energy infrastructure.  It’s not just the environmental issues.  Look at the impact that every war has on global petroleum prices.  Imagine a future where that doesn’t happen. Where Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia have no leverage over the economies of the industrialized nations.  Where fuel prices aren’t 20% of the budget of a family. Where truck drivers don’t spent $20,000 a month to fuel their trucks. 
 

Now imagine that China and Europe have that kind of energy, and we’re still buying oil. It’s like wooden ships going up against iron clads. We lose. 
 

The time to act is now, before China and Russia dominate us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You are making no point here.

The simple truth is that Al Gore was a policy-maker, not a scientist. The scientists are overwhelmingly clear on the issue. 
 

Forget About Global Warming.

What matters is that America will not be competitive if we do not invest in a renewable energy infrastructure.  It’s not just the environmental issues.  Look at the impact that every war has on global petroleum prices.  Imagine a future where that doesn’t happen. Where Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia have no leverage over the economies of the industrialized nations.  Where fuel prices aren’t 20% of the budget of a family. Where truck drivers don’t spent $20,000 a month to fuel their trucks. 
 

Now imagine that China and Europe have that kind of energy, and we’re still buying oil. It’s like wooden ships going up against iron clads. We lose. 
 

The time to act is now, before China and Russia dominate us. 

Al Gore is another liar who spread false information widely with his movie or film but has since been exposed as a fraud.   He deceived millions of people, including people like Trudeau and Greta and yourself.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

1. Labelling me anything 'progressive' or 'dummy' as you called me a few posts back, doesn't help your argument.  

Well stop being so thick and arguing like a Prog does then.

Look, let's go from the beginning. You wanted to insinuate there was no science or scientists involved in the coming ice age theory, that it was all media.

I listed people who thought they were talking science that were involved in the theory. I said Hansen wrote a model used by ice ageists.

You asked for a cite. I should have seen the old Prog trick coming of wanting to find some incidental little technicality to divert way off topic. However knowing you like to pout when somebody won't do your searches for you I generously showed you both sides of the issue. Some say Hansen used a program to create a model that showed there wouldn't be enough CO2 warming to stop the coming ice age. Jimmy says "Who me? No, I just had a program for my venus studies they used to create the model."

At that point it becomes who do you believe. Now me I suspect Hansen wrote the model. Later in his career he gets into a lot of problems for not wanting to share his work and even when he does some say it was practically indecipherable written in some outdated computer language. I think it was cobalt. (Please don't get all proggy again and go off on why it couldn't be cobalt)

Also, at the time, Hansen was Rasool's subordinate. Also even in his own explanation he writes how he supported the project. He says just as a useful experiment. Hansen also gave advice to the co-author of the paper Steven Schneider.

Speaking of Schneider he also became a well known global warmist.

So if your original point is no global warming scientists were involved in the ice age theory forget about Hansen or even Barrack Obama's science adviser John Holdren, I mentioned earlier. Rasool and Co-author of the ice age paper, Steven Schneider proves your original point that scientists were not involved in the ice-age theory wrong. 

shs-hansen-rasool.jpg

Steve Schneider (left), Jim Hansen (centre), and S. Ichtiaque Rasool (right) at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, circa 1971. Image copyright: Stephen H. Schneider

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientists Debunk UN "Climate" Hysteria

"PARIS — Amid United Nations efforts to shackle humanity to a UN “climate regime” at the COP21 global-warming summit, an international team of scientists and experts from various fields debunked the hysteria at a separate conference in Paris for realists. Essentially, the prestigious scientists said, there is no man-made global-warming crisis. The UN’s “climate” efforts, meanwhile, have a much more sinister agenda: Destroying industrial civilization, propping up kleptocrats with Western tax funds, and seizing control of the global economy under the guise of regulating the immensely beneficial “gas of life,” also known as carbon dioxide. The top U.S. senator on the Environment Committee also offered a message of hope to climate realists, saying the “climate charade” by the UN and the Obama administration was dead on arrival.  "

In Paris, Scientists Debunk UN “Climate” Hysteria - The New American

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

Scientists have revealed that an ancient shark with paired spines and bony armor may be humans’ earliest ancestor.

If our ancestors were sharks with bony armour, I don't think evolution was progress. Sharks with armour >>> sharks with laser beams.

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Hodad said:

Hah. I think you've got our roles reversed here. The medical community has an overwhelming consensus that vaccines are safe and effective. There are a few crackpots and discredited liars out there who sow FUD that undermines that consensus and the anti-vaxxers glom onto an extreme minority opinion rather than accepting the settled science.

The exact same scenario has played out in climate science. Overwhelming consensus among scientists -- and near unanimity among climate scientists -- yet some people find themselves drawn to (usually unqualified) fringe dissenters to pretend that the science isn't settled. It is. Overwhelmingly so. 

You, sir, and the other folks who remain "unconvinced" of mankind's influence on climate change, are the anti-vaxxers in this situation. 

....

Mellow out Dude (or dudette).

I have told what I believe in.

Why do people like you insist on dragging out and arguing or demeaning other opinions??

OK, yours is bigger than mine. Feel better?? LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Mellow out Dude (or dudette).

I have told what I believe in.

Why do people like you insist on dragging out and arguing or demeaning other opinions??

OK, yours is bigger than mine. Feel better?? LOL

I'm pretty mellow, but I believe I already explained why this stuff matters. It's not just a harmless opinion, like whether one prefers chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Our experts are telling us as in unison and as loudly as they can that we're facing an existential threat that demands immediate action, and we have laypeople casually hand-waving uncountable hours of research and study in a way that sows doubt and undermines the building of personal and political will to act.

If you tell your neighbor not to trust climate science, that has an effect on them. Especially when it comes to making a difficult or inconvenient change to their lifestyle. Just like when a person tells their neighbor not to trust vaccines. It's not a harmless opinion. It sows doubt and there are real stakes. 

I took the effort to type out a reply (now several) to you specifically because you do not seem unreachable (or insane). I suppose like anyone who participates in a forum there is the small hope of changing minds, that perhaps reframing an issue with critical thinking will prompt reconsideration where mountains of data have not. That you would ask yourself why you are simply choosing not to believe a near-unanimous consensus of experts.

That's the why. You asked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I....

I took the effort to type out a reply (now several) to you specifically because you do not seem unreachable (or insane). I.....

That's the why. You asked. 

Tsk Tsk Tsk.

 

Oh, I am insane??? You lost it all with that one. Zero credibility now.

"Why do people like you insist on dragging out and arguing or demeaning other opinions??"

Time for you to move on from me as I have no time for your insults..

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Tsk Tsk Tsk.

 

Oh, I am insane??? You lost it all with that one. Zero credibility now.

"Why do people like you insist on dragging out and arguing or demeaning other opinions??"

Time for you to move on from me as I have no time for your insults..

Um, you might want to read that again. It says you don't seem unreachable or insane. But that was just a first impression. You could convince me otherwise, lol.

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

I'm pretty mellow, but I believe I already explained why this stuff matters. It's not just a harmless opinion, like whether one prefers chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Our experts are telling us as in unison and as loudly as they can that we're facing an existential threat that demands immediate action, and we have laypeople casually hand-waving uncountable hours of research and study in a way that sows doubt and undermines the building of personal and political will to act.

If you tell your neighbor not to trust climate science, that has an effect on them. Especially when it comes to making a difficult or inconvenient change to their lifestyle. Just like when a person tells their neighbor not to trust vaccines. It's not a harmless opinion. It sows doubt and there are real stakes. 

I took the effort to type out a reply (now several) to you specifically because you do not seem unreachable (or insane). I suppose like anyone who participates in a forum there is the small hope of changing minds, that perhaps reframing an issue with critical thinking will prompt reconsideration where mountains of data have not. That you would ask yourself why you are simply choosing not to believe a near-unanimous consensus of experts.

That's the why. You asked. 

I doubt very much it is near unanimous.  The mob or herd does not prove truth.  For example, most people believe in evolution because it is taught in schools as fact or dogma when if you really examine it, it is not a fact; it is just a theory or hypothesis with no proof.  More importantly it has been debunked and rejected by many scientists.   If you form your opinion just based on numbers, you will be sadly deceived.

"In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science' (forbes.com)

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are releasing CO2 generated by fossil fuels at a rate of 65,000 metric tons a minute (NASA). That is from carbon that took 100's of millions of years for the earth to generate and sequester in its crust and we have been releasing back into the atmosphere in a matter of generations. 

 

Human activities generate over 60 times more CO2 than volcanoes (NOAA)

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Aristides said:

We are releasing CO2 generated by fossil fuels at a rate of 65,000 metric tons a minute (NASA). That is from carbon that took 100's of millions of years for the earth to generate and sequester in its crust and we have been releasing back into the atmosphere in a matter of generations. 

 

Human activities generate over 60 times more CO2 than volcanoes (NOAA)

OK mr climatologist, can you explain to me how Trudeau can fly reporters around in a jumbo jet, just to make sure that his divine glory is captured on film, and then just "buy some carbon offsets", but Pierre Poilievre can't drive a car?  

How does that work? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

OK mr climatologist, can you explain to me how Trudeau can fly reporters around in a jumbo jet, just to make sure that his divine glory is captured on film, and then just "buy some carbon offsets", but Pierre Poilievre can't drive a car?  

How does that work? 

I don't try to explain or justify anything those guys do. Trudeau is a hypocrite when it comes to practicing what he preaches. Why can't PP drive a car?

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
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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