Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,396
- 2,180
Funny I just see a random list, when I click on the links.. nothing about man made climate change...
.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pollution, climate change, or control?
- Thread starter Redfish
- Start date
Funny I just see a random list, when I click on the links.. nothing about man made climate change...
.
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #242
Well, you need some control through regulations and laws to have clean air, water and food. That is just a part of civilization.
Get use to it or be ready to live with lower standards..Much lower.
Get use to it or be ready to live with lower standards..Much lower.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
As goes the U.S. one would think it's obvious.
As a non-liberal, it should be apparent to you that if those places flood because the planet warms, they'll be moving into your part of country. Though "your part" of the nation may at the moment be conservative dominated, once the coastal liberals move in, it won't be. Accordingly, if you value your political homogeneity and hegemony in "your part" of the country, you too should want to, if scientists are offering a means, to keep the coastal liberals right where they are by taking action to abate the climate changes that are predicted to submerge the areas where they currently reside.
From that perspective, it really doesn't matter whether humans will have caused the warming. What matters is whether humans can abate it.
As a non-liberal, it should be apparent to you that if those places flood because the planet warms, they'll be moving into your part of country. Though "your part" of the nation may at the moment be conservative dominated, once the coastal liberals move in, it won't be. Accordingly, if you value your political homogeneity and hegemony in "your part" of the country, you too should want to, if scientists are offering a means, to keep the coastal liberals right where they are by taking action to abate the climate changes that are predicted to submerge the areas where they currently reside.
From that perspective, it really doesn't matter whether humans will have caused the warming. What matters is whether humans can abate it.
Redfish
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #244
CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere. It is virtually the same today as it was a million years ago. CO2 is not a pollutant.
in 1850 it was .028%. And ....
"The last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Until the 20th century, it certainly hadn't exceeded 300 ppm, let alone 400 ppm, for at least 800,000 years."
Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm
And dinosaurs were huge..so what's your point?
.
FishyFish is repeating false fact. I mean alternative facts.
Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
"You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science."
And that was in 2009. CO2 level now is over .041% or 410 ppm
Show CO2
could you please tell us how acts of humans caused the CO2 rise 15 million years ago. I am very anxious to hear this.
now .039% to .041%. are you serious? that is within the margin of measurement error. Do you understand how much air surrounds the earth? how many cubic miles of air? and you think that we can measure .02% change in CO2? If you do, I have some beautiful ocean front property in Kansas to sell you.
Wow what a brilliant question. I'l have to contemplate that for a while.
That was the value on the 6th of April. today it is 409.xx
Daily CO2
on Mauna Loa. Do you think that wind currents and volcanic activity on the big island just might have some affect on those readings?
.039% to .040% Wow, everybody run, the sky is falling and the oceans are rising, we are all gonna die tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
Redfish
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #245
trying to understand what is really behind the left's obsession with "man made climate change".
If its reducing man made pollution, I am all in with them. So are 99% of the people of planet earth.
If its an unproven link between pollution and climate, its bunk and not necessary----- if the goal is reducing pollution
If its controlling human activity, which I believe it is, then they can stick it where the sun never shines.
Liberals seem to think that they know how the rest of us should live and want to force us to live as they dictate, where to set our thermostats, what kind of light bulbs, what kind of cars, what kind of food, how our power is generated, where we can travel, and what we must believe---------------because they have all the answers and they are always right.
Listen libs, pollution is bad, everyone wants to stop pollution. You don't need a fake link between pollution and climate to make the case for stopping pollution. Soooooooooo, your real issue has to be control of the actions of others.
Comments?
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, thousands of scientists have shown that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has been causing global warming. This is not a liberal crusade, this is a scientific fact. That knowledge predates current politics.
It has been proven at least as much as cigarettes increase the risk on cancer, or air pollution in general causing health problems.
Besides, simple common sense is that if you increase the amount of CO2 in a volume of air the rate of heat dissipation will change. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
What is new is that because global warming is approaching critical level in the not too distant future, a liberal - Al Gore - went on a campaign to raise awareness. Because Al Gore is a liberal, mindlessly partisan wingnuts started a campaign of global warming denial - for no other reason than they perceived the Global Warming' issue as being a 'Liberal' issue.
So, out of the tens of thousands of research reports that have been issued by thousands of scientists over the past century and a half, the wingnuts found a few discrepancies and exaggerations. They have based a campaign of denial on partisanship and ignorance. They have not just been in denial of man-made global warming, but of science and reason as well.
A tiny number of industrialist have benefited from this. They are running massive CO2 generating power plants. These power plants are incredibly inefficient and cost their companies millions of dollars more than energy efficient power plants over the course of a decade. But, true to their short-sighted self serving interests, they refuse to bit the bullet and install energy efficient systems. Those systems would cost in the low millions in the short haul, but would save many more millions in the long run. If they were in any way competent, they would change these systems over just for the long term savings.
The narrative that Liberals are promoting Global warming because liberals are a bunch of control freaks is laughable - it's plain idiotic. Liberals have faith in science and reason. We believe that those people who are qualified should be the ones to judge whether global warming is man made - not a bunch of political trolls.
I worked at a research center for a global chemical company years ago. ALL the research scientists that worked there - who had vested interests in the profitability of the company - had no doubt whatsoever that global warming was man made. Yet out power plant dated from 1926. It was inefficient as hell. Yet the company administration - a bunch of MBAs with no scientific knowledge whatsoever - refused to replace it. All they could care about was short term profitability.
The funny thing is that all it would take is for industry to install power plants that had the same energy efficiency as our home 'Energy Star' rated systems.
When you consider what is at risk, is that so much to ask?
The amount of pollution put into the air and water by humans per capita is being reduced. The problem is that the number of humans keeps increasing.
If you want a real issue to attack, how about attacking over population? and you don't need a fake link between pollution and climate in order to do that.
Redfish
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #246
As goes the U.S. one would think it's obvious.
As a non-liberal, it should be apparent to you that if those places flood because the planet warms, they'll be moving into your part of country. Though "your part" of the nation may at the moment be conservative dominated, once the coastal liberals move in, it won't be. Accordingly, if you value your political homogeneity and hegemony in "your part" of the country, you too should want to, if scientists are offering a means, to keep the coastal liberals right where they are by taking action to abate the climate changes that are predicted to submerge the areas where they currently reside.
From that perspective, it really doesn't matter whether humans will have caused the warming. What matters is whether humans can abate it.
your last sentence actually makes a little sense, the answer is NO we cannot stop, slow, or abate climate change. We cannot control the activity of the sun, earth's wobble on its axis, or ocean currents. We can adapt, but we cannot control. To think otherwise is the height of ignorance.
Redfish
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #247
When it comes down to it reduction of pollution and respect for our environment is all we can really do. It doesn't matter if there is a link between mans actions and climate change. We should all be able to agree that the cleaner we live the better for all.trying to understand what is really behind the left's obsession with "man made climate change".
If its reducing man made pollution, I am all in with them. So are 99% of the people of planet earth.
If its an unproven link between pollution and climate, its bunk and not necessary----- if the goal is reducing pollution
If its controlling human activity, which I believe it is, then they can stick it where the sun never shines.
Liberals seem to think that they know how the rest of us should live and want to force us to live as they dictate, where to set our thermostats, what kind of light bulbs, what kind of cars, what kind of food, how our power is generated, where we can travel, and what we must believe---------------because they have all the answers and they are always right.
Listen libs, pollution is bad, everyone wants to stop pollution. You don't need a fake link between pollution and climate to make the case for stopping pollution. Soooooooooo, your real issue has to be control of the actions of others.
Comments?
Now yes, there are wingnuts on the left that point to doomsday and want too much government control/regulations over our daily lives... and there are rightwing nuts that focus on discrediting all environmental discussion because they don't really give a shit what they do as long as they can make a buck. I believe the majority of people fall in the middle. They don't want big business and our government destroying our habitat, they support development of clean energy methods, they support infrastructure that keeps our water and air clean, and they support better education about environmental issues.
It would be great to have a constructive discussion about the best ways to move forward without the voices of the wingnuts taking over.
I am sorry it is not wing nuts as you describe it...
Every major Scientific Organisation and even the major global Oil Companies(Exxon, Shell,...) now admit that man made climate change is real. There is only a handful of scientists who are paid off or relying on unverified or false data... Some of the people who have tried and defend to sceptic view don't even know the difference between Climate and Weather...
wrong, wrong, wrong. What they all agree on is that man made pollution is real. The link between pollution and climate is based on THEORIES AND ASSUMPTIONS.
climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years and will be changing hundreds of millions of years after the last human lives on earth. Man has never had anything to do with it. Even if there was a nuclear war, the impact on climate would be temporary in terms of the life of our planet.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
That's what you say and present not one shred of evidence that is so. In comparison, a whole lot of people have a different point of view -- with regard to climate change and the economics of attempting to abate it -- and they corroborate it with complete arguments, facts, figures and detailed analysis that identify what can be done and how long it'll take for those actions to take effect.As goes the U.S. one would think it's obvious.
As a non-liberal, it should be apparent to you that if those places flood because the planet warms, they'll be moving into your part of country. Though "your part" of the nation may at the moment be conservative dominated, once the coastal liberals move in, it won't be. Accordingly, if you value your political homogeneity and hegemony in "your part" of the country, you too should want to, if scientists are offering a means, to keep the coastal liberals right where they are by taking action to abate the climate changes that are predicted to submerge the areas where they currently reside.
From that perspective, it really doesn't matter whether humans will have caused the warming. What matters is whether humans can abate it.
your last sentence actually makes a little sense, the answer is NO we cannot stop, slow, or abate climate change. We cannot control the activity of the sun, earth's wobble on its axis, or ocean currents. We can adapt, but we cannot control. To think otherwise is the height of ignorance.
- Climate Change Mitigation -- What Can We Do?
- The Economic Effects of Climate Change
- Climate Change Abatement Strategies Which Way is the Wind Blowing?
- Continued global warming after CO2 emissions stoppage
- 10 Solutions for Climate Change Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
- Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
- Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions
Redfish
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #249
That's what you say and present not one shred of evidence that is so. In comparison, a whole lot of people have a different point of view -- with regard to climate change and the economics of attempting to abate it -- and they corroborate it with complete arguments, facts, figures and detailed analysis that identify what can be done and how long it'll take for those actions to take effect.As goes the U.S. one would think it's obvious.
As a non-liberal, it should be apparent to you that if those places flood because the planet warms, they'll be moving into your part of country. Though "your part" of the nation may at the moment be conservative dominated, once the coastal liberals move in, it won't be. Accordingly, if you value your political homogeneity and hegemony in "your part" of the country, you too should want to, if scientists are offering a means, to keep the coastal liberals right where they are by taking action to abate the climate changes that are predicted to submerge the areas where they currently reside.
From that perspective, it really doesn't matter whether humans will have caused the warming. What matters is whether humans can abate it.
your last sentence actually makes a little sense, the answer is NO we cannot stop, slow, or abate climate change. We cannot control the activity of the sun, earth's wobble on its axis, or ocean currents. We can adapt, but we cannot control. To think otherwise is the height of ignorance.
Are the effects of climate change going to be stopped with the immediacy of a moving object colliding with an immovable one? No, but then nobody's expecting that pace result from any actions humanity might undertake. As you'll find in one of the documents listed above, dealing with climate change is inevitable. The situation in which we now find ourselves with regard to direct actions taken to abate climate change is one whereby the question is in what respective proportions will we attenuate, endure and "roll with" the changes. If as I noted earlier you are okay with adapting to the migration of tens of millions of liberals moving into areas that are today conservative-dominated, well, then, you are.
- Climate Change Mitigation -- What Can We Do?
- The Economic Effects of Climate Change
- Climate Change Abatement Strategies Which Way is the Wind Blowing?
- Continued global warming after CO2 emissions stoppage
- 10 Solutions for Climate Change Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
- Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
- Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions
your gullibility is amazing. The articles you cited are rubbish.
Everyone agrees that we need to reduce human caused pollution of our air and water---------------EVERYONE.
But when you try to create a fake link between pollution and climate you lose at least half of the people since at least half of humanity is capable of rational thinking and realizes that climate is controlled by the activity of the sun, the earth's slight wobble on its axis and minor changes in ocean currents.
I just do not understand why the left thinks it needs to link pollution and climate in order to fight pollution. Well, maybe I do. Its not about climate or pollution, its about controlling the actions of people and stopping capitalism. Its a leftist movement towards a world socialist government, led by a very small group of elites who think that they know how the rest of us should live---------------if you think about it rationally, you would understand that this is really what the AGW religion is all about.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Save your semantically derived argument for someone who's likely to cotton to such sophistry.That's what you say and present not one shred of evidence that is so. In comparison, a whole lot of people have a different point of view -- with regard to climate change and the economics of attempting to abate it -- and they corroborate it with complete arguments, facts, figures and detailed analysis that identify what can be done and how long it'll take for those actions to take effect.As goes the U.S. one would think it's obvious.
As a non-liberal, it should be apparent to you that if those places flood because the planet warms, they'll be moving into your part of country. Though "your part" of the nation may at the moment be conservative dominated, once the coastal liberals move in, it won't be. Accordingly, if you value your political homogeneity and hegemony in "your part" of the country, you too should want to, if scientists are offering a means, to keep the coastal liberals right where they are by taking action to abate the climate changes that are predicted to submerge the areas where they currently reside.
From that perspective, it really doesn't matter whether humans will have caused the warming. What matters is whether humans can abate it.
your last sentence actually makes a little sense, the answer is NO we cannot stop, slow, or abate climate change. We cannot control the activity of the sun, earth's wobble on its axis, or ocean currents. We can adapt, but we cannot control. To think otherwise is the height of ignorance.
Are the effects of climate change going to be stopped with the immediacy of a moving object colliding with an immovable one? No, but then nobody's expecting that pace result from any actions humanity might undertake. As you'll find in one of the documents listed above, dealing with climate change is inevitable. The situation in which we now find ourselves with regard to direct actions taken to abate climate change is one whereby the question is in what respective proportions will we attenuate, endure and "roll with" the changes. If as I noted earlier you are okay with adapting to the migration of tens of millions of liberals moving into areas that are today conservative-dominated, well, then, you are.
- Climate Change Mitigation -- What Can We Do?
- The Economic Effects of Climate Change
- Climate Change Abatement Strategies Which Way is the Wind Blowing?
- Continued global warming after CO2 emissions stoppage
- 10 Solutions for Climate Change Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
- Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
- Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions
your gullibility is amazing. The articles you cited are rubbish.
Everyone agrees that we need to reduce human caused pollution of our air and water---------------EVERYONE.
But when you try to create a fake link between pollution and climate you lose at least half of the people since at least half of humanity is capable of rational thinking and realizes that climate is controlled by the activity of the sun, the earth's slight wobble on its axis and minor changes in ocean currents.
I just do not understand why the left thinks it needs to link pollution and climate in order to fight pollution. Well, maybe I do. Its not about climate or pollution, its about controlling the actions of people and stopping capitalism. Its a leftist movement towards a world socialist government, led by a very small group of elites who think that they know how the rest of us should live---------------if you think about it rationally, you would understand that this is really what the AGW religion is all about.
The articles you cited are rubbish.
So you say, and yet I see nothing from you showing that to be so. Where is your exposition regarding the speciousness of the specific methodologies used to arrive at the noted results and findings is flawed? Oh, wait, you didn't deliver any. All we have is your bald claim to that effect.
Redfish
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #251
Save your semantically derived argument for someone who's likely to cotton to such sophistry.That's what you say and present not one shred of evidence that is so. In comparison, a whole lot of people have a different point of view -- with regard to climate change and the economics of attempting to abate it -- and they corroborate it with complete arguments, facts, figures and detailed analysis that identify what can be done and how long it'll take for those actions to take effect.As goes the U.S. one would think it's obvious.
As a non-liberal, it should be apparent to you that if those places flood because the planet warms, they'll be moving into your part of country. Though "your part" of the nation may at the moment be conservative dominated, once the coastal liberals move in, it won't be. Accordingly, if you value your political homogeneity and hegemony in "your part" of the country, you too should want to, if scientists are offering a means, to keep the coastal liberals right where they are by taking action to abate the climate changes that are predicted to submerge the areas where they currently reside.
From that perspective, it really doesn't matter whether humans will have caused the warming. What matters is whether humans can abate it.
your last sentence actually makes a little sense, the answer is NO we cannot stop, slow, or abate climate change. We cannot control the activity of the sun, earth's wobble on its axis, or ocean currents. We can adapt, but we cannot control. To think otherwise is the height of ignorance.
Are the effects of climate change going to be stopped with the immediacy of a moving object colliding with an immovable one? No, but then nobody's expecting that pace result from any actions humanity might undertake. As you'll find in one of the documents listed above, dealing with climate change is inevitable. The situation in which we now find ourselves with regard to direct actions taken to abate climate change is one whereby the question is in what respective proportions will we attenuate, endure and "roll with" the changes. If as I noted earlier you are okay with adapting to the migration of tens of millions of liberals moving into areas that are today conservative-dominated, well, then, you are.
- Climate Change Mitigation -- What Can We Do?
- The Economic Effects of Climate Change
- Climate Change Abatement Strategies Which Way is the Wind Blowing?
- Continued global warming after CO2 emissions stoppage
- 10 Solutions for Climate Change Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
- Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
- Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions
your gullibility is amazing. The articles you cited are rubbish.
Everyone agrees that we need to reduce human caused pollution of our air and water---------------EVERYONE.
But when you try to create a fake link between pollution and climate you lose at least half of the people since at least half of humanity is capable of rational thinking and realizes that climate is controlled by the activity of the sun, the earth's slight wobble on its axis and minor changes in ocean currents.
I just do not understand why the left thinks it needs to link pollution and climate in order to fight pollution. Well, maybe I do. Its not about climate or pollution, its about controlling the actions of people and stopping capitalism. Its a leftist movement towards a world socialist government, led by a very small group of elites who think that they know how the rest of us should live---------------if you think about it rationally, you would understand that this is really what the AGW religion is all about.
The articles you cited are rubbish.
So you say, and yet I see nothing from you showing that to be so. All we have is your bald claim to that effect.
Dude, believe whatever you want to believe. I really don't give a shit what you believe or what nonsense has been shoveled into your brain by your handlers.
Man is not changing the climate of planet earth, never has, never will. Polluting, yes, changing climate, no.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Save your semantically derived argument for someone who's likely to cotton to such sophistry.That's what you say and present not one shred of evidence that is so. In comparison, a whole lot of people have a different point of view -- with regard to climate change and the economics of attempting to abate it -- and they corroborate it with complete arguments, facts, figures and detailed analysis that identify what can be done and how long it'll take for those actions to take effect.As goes the U.S. one would think it's obvious.
As a non-liberal, it should be apparent to you that if those places flood because the planet warms, they'll be moving into your part of country. Though "your part" of the nation may at the moment be conservative dominated, once the coastal liberals move in, it won't be. Accordingly, if you value your political homogeneity and hegemony in "your part" of the country, you too should want to, if scientists are offering a means, to keep the coastal liberals right where they are by taking action to abate the climate changes that are predicted to submerge the areas where they currently reside.
From that perspective, it really doesn't matter whether humans will have caused the warming. What matters is whether humans can abate it.
your last sentence actually makes a little sense, the answer is NO we cannot stop, slow, or abate climate change. We cannot control the activity of the sun, earth's wobble on its axis, or ocean currents. We can adapt, but we cannot control. To think otherwise is the height of ignorance.
Are the effects of climate change going to be stopped with the immediacy of a moving object colliding with an immovable one? No, but then nobody's expecting that pace result from any actions humanity might undertake. As you'll find in one of the documents listed above, dealing with climate change is inevitable. The situation in which we now find ourselves with regard to direct actions taken to abate climate change is one whereby the question is in what respective proportions will we attenuate, endure and "roll with" the changes. If as I noted earlier you are okay with adapting to the migration of tens of millions of liberals moving into areas that are today conservative-dominated, well, then, you are.
- Climate Change Mitigation -- What Can We Do?
- The Economic Effects of Climate Change
- Climate Change Abatement Strategies Which Way is the Wind Blowing?
- Continued global warming after CO2 emissions stoppage
- 10 Solutions for Climate Change Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
- Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
- Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions
your gullibility is amazing. The articles you cited are rubbish.
Everyone agrees that we need to reduce human caused pollution of our air and water---------------EVERYONE.
But when you try to create a fake link between pollution and climate you lose at least half of the people since at least half of humanity is capable of rational thinking and realizes that climate is controlled by the activity of the sun, the earth's slight wobble on its axis and minor changes in ocean currents.
I just do not understand why the left thinks it needs to link pollution and climate in order to fight pollution. Well, maybe I do. Its not about climate or pollution, its about controlling the actions of people and stopping capitalism. Its a leftist movement towards a world socialist government, led by a very small group of elites who think that they know how the rest of us should live---------------if you think about it rationally, you would understand that this is really what the AGW religion is all about.
The articles you cited are rubbish.
So you say, and yet I see nothing from you showing that to be so. All we have is your bald claim to that effect.
So you say, and yet I see nothing from you showing that to be so. Where is your exposition regarding the speciousness of the specific methodologies used to arrive at the noted results and findings is flawed? Oh, wait, you didn't deliver any. All we have is your bald claim to that effect.
Dude, believer whatever you want to believe. I really don't give a shit what you believe or what nonsense has been shoveled into your brain by your handlers.
Man is not changing the climate of planet earth, never has, never will. Polluting, yes, changing climate, no.
Oh, well, now there's a rigorous response that makes your claim so much more credible. NOT!!!
Richard-H
Gold Member
- Aug 19, 2008
- 11,482
- 4,116
- 315
Let's see, should we believe some mindless partisan internet twit called LaDexter or should we believe NASA?
Like the birdbrain you are, you refuse to think. All you do is PARROT, and decide WHO to PARROT....
90% of Earth ice is on land mass Antarctica. What does NASA's DATA say about that ice???
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."
NASA's DATA says Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of ice EVERY YEAR since Algore started lying...
So PARROT THAT, birdbrain...
In the words of Tonto:
"I can't tell if this horse is stupid or if this horse is just pretending to be stupid".
You've ignored the dozens of articles on the NASA website which clearly state that Climate change is real and that it is largely man made.
You've picked one article which you erroneously think indicates that there is no climate change, but in fact that article reinforces the fact that climate change is happening. Massive amount of ice are disappearing from one area of the Antarctic and appearing in another area of the Antarctic. This indicates climate change.
It's apparent that, like so many conservatives, you think if you look out the window and see snow it means that there is no global warming. That's not how global warming works.
Given the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the heat dissipation of the atmosphere is much slower - the atmosphere holds more heat. Because the atmosphere hold more heat, it absorbs more water and holds more water. However, this means that when precipitation occurs, the storms are more often and more intense.
Global warming is indicated by the total displacement of water throughout the world. The total amount of water never changes - it gets moved via intense storms. In one area there may be reduced amount of water while in other areas increased amounts.
The result is more droughts, more tornadoes, more hurricanes, more inland flooding, more mud slides...etc...all of which will increase in intensity. (Though hurricane seasons are cyclic - any one season may have fewer hurricanes, but seasons that have a lot of hurricanes will have more intense hurricanes).
Sea levels may rise, but if more water is dumped inland it offsets sea level increases. Total glacier sizes may increase or decrease as will arctic and antarctic ice. Measurements of sea level and glacial ice are not in and of themselves going to give an accurate picture. Total water displacement throughout the world is the only way to measure global warming.
I suggest that you revisit:
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
Read ALL the articles instead of just cherry picking one that you think supports your argument.
Ask your self whether your in pursuit of truth or just a political hack that ignores anything that doesn't support your argument.
Richard-H
Gold Member
- Aug 19, 2008
- 11,482
- 4,116
- 315
Save your semantically derived argument for someone who's likely to cotton to such sophistry.That's what you say and present not one shred of evidence that is so. In comparison, a whole lot of people have a different point of view -- with regard to climate change and the economics of attempting to abate it -- and they corroborate it with complete arguments, facts, figures and detailed analysis that identify what can be done and how long it'll take for those actions to take effect.As goes the U.S. one would think it's obvious.
As a non-liberal, it should be apparent to you that if those places flood because the planet warms, they'll be moving into your part of country. Though "your part" of the nation may at the moment be conservative dominated, once the coastal liberals move in, it won't be. Accordingly, if you value your political homogeneity and hegemony in "your part" of the country, you too should want to, if scientists are offering a means, to keep the coastal liberals right where they are by taking action to abate the climate changes that are predicted to submerge the areas where they currently reside.
From that perspective, it really doesn't matter whether humans will have caused the warming. What matters is whether humans can abate it.
your last sentence actually makes a little sense, the answer is NO we cannot stop, slow, or abate climate change. We cannot control the activity of the sun, earth's wobble on its axis, or ocean currents. We can adapt, but we cannot control. To think otherwise is the height of ignorance.
Are the effects of climate change going to be stopped with the immediacy of a moving object colliding with an immovable one? No, but then nobody's expecting that pace result from any actions humanity might undertake. As you'll find in one of the documents listed above, dealing with climate change is inevitable. The situation in which we now find ourselves with regard to direct actions taken to abate climate change is one whereby the question is in what respective proportions will we attenuate, endure and "roll with" the changes. If as I noted earlier you are okay with adapting to the migration of tens of millions of liberals moving into areas that are today conservative-dominated, well, then, you are.
- Climate Change Mitigation -- What Can We Do?
- The Economic Effects of Climate Change
- Climate Change Abatement Strategies Which Way is the Wind Blowing?
- Continued global warming after CO2 emissions stoppage
- 10 Solutions for Climate Change Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
- Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
- Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions
your gullibility is amazing. The articles you cited are rubbish.
Everyone agrees that we need to reduce human caused pollution of our air and water---------------EVERYONE.
But when you try to create a fake link between pollution and climate you lose at least half of the people since at least half of humanity is capable of rational thinking and realizes that climate is controlled by the activity of the sun, the earth's slight wobble on its axis and minor changes in ocean currents.
I just do not understand why the left thinks it needs to link pollution and climate in order to fight pollution. Well, maybe I do. Its not about climate or pollution, its about controlling the actions of people and stopping capitalism. Its a leftist movement towards a world socialist government, led by a very small group of elites who think that they know how the rest of us should live---------------if you think about it rationally, you would understand that this is really what the AGW religion is all about.
The articles you cited are rubbish.
So you say, and yet I see nothing from you showing that to be so. All we have is your bald claim to that effect.
Dude, believe whatever you want to believe. I really don't give a shit what you believe or what nonsense has been shoveled into your brain by your handlers.
Man is not changing the climate of planet earth, never has, never will. Polluting, yes, changing climate, no.
Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Save your semantically derived argument for someone who's likely to cotton to such sophistry.That's what you say and present not one shred of evidence that is so. In comparison, a whole lot of people have a different point of view -- with regard to climate change and the economics of attempting to abate it -- and they corroborate it with complete arguments, facts, figures and detailed analysis that identify what can be done and how long it'll take for those actions to take effect.your last sentence actually makes a little sense, the answer is NO we cannot stop, slow, or abate climate change. We cannot control the activity of the sun, earth's wobble on its axis, or ocean currents. We can adapt, but we cannot control. To think otherwise is the height of ignorance.
Are the effects of climate change going to be stopped with the immediacy of a moving object colliding with an immovable one? No, but then nobody's expecting that pace result from any actions humanity might undertake. As you'll find in one of the documents listed above, dealing with climate change is inevitable. The situation in which we now find ourselves with regard to direct actions taken to abate climate change is one whereby the question is in what respective proportions will we attenuate, endure and "roll with" the changes. If as I noted earlier you are okay with adapting to the migration of tens of millions of liberals moving into areas that are today conservative-dominated, well, then, you are.
- Climate Change Mitigation -- What Can We Do?
- The Economic Effects of Climate Change
- Climate Change Abatement Strategies Which Way is the Wind Blowing?
- Continued global warming after CO2 emissions stoppage
- 10 Solutions for Climate Change Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
- Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
- Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions
your gullibility is amazing. The articles you cited are rubbish.
Everyone agrees that we need to reduce human caused pollution of our air and water---------------EVERYONE.
But when you try to create a fake link between pollution and climate you lose at least half of the people since at least half of humanity is capable of rational thinking and realizes that climate is controlled by the activity of the sun, the earth's slight wobble on its axis and minor changes in ocean currents.
I just do not understand why the left thinks it needs to link pollution and climate in order to fight pollution. Well, maybe I do. Its not about climate or pollution, its about controlling the actions of people and stopping capitalism. Its a leftist movement towards a world socialist government, led by a very small group of elites who think that they know how the rest of us should live---------------if you think about it rationally, you would understand that this is really what the AGW religion is all about.
The articles you cited are rubbish.
So you say, and yet I see nothing from you showing that to be so. All we have is your bald claim to that effect.
Dude, believe whatever you want to believe. I really don't give a shit what you believe or what nonsense has been shoveled into your brain by your handlers.
Man is not changing the climate of planet earth, never has, never will. Polluting, yes, changing climate, no.
Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?
Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?
I don't believe that. I accept that certain types of pollution are climate change catalysts, not a form climate change itself.
Richard-H
Gold Member
- Aug 19, 2008
- 11,482
- 4,116
- 315
Save your semantically derived argument for someone who's likely to cotton to such sophistry.That's what you say and present not one shred of evidence that is so. In comparison, a whole lot of people have a different point of view -- with regard to climate change and the economics of attempting to abate it -- and they corroborate it with complete arguments, facts, figures and detailed analysis that identify what can be done and how long it'll take for those actions to take effect.
Are the effects of climate change going to be stopped with the immediacy of a moving object colliding with an immovable one? No, but then nobody's expecting that pace result from any actions humanity might undertake. As you'll find in one of the documents listed above, dealing with climate change is inevitable. The situation in which we now find ourselves with regard to direct actions taken to abate climate change is one whereby the question is in what respective proportions will we attenuate, endure and "roll with" the changes. If as I noted earlier you are okay with adapting to the migration of tens of millions of liberals moving into areas that are today conservative-dominated, well, then, you are.
- Climate Change Mitigation -- What Can We Do?
- The Economic Effects of Climate Change
- Climate Change Abatement Strategies Which Way is the Wind Blowing?
- Continued global warming after CO2 emissions stoppage
- 10 Solutions for Climate Change Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
- Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
- Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions
your gullibility is amazing. The articles you cited are rubbish.
Everyone agrees that we need to reduce human caused pollution of our air and water---------------EVERYONE.
But when you try to create a fake link between pollution and climate you lose at least half of the people since at least half of humanity is capable of rational thinking and realizes that climate is controlled by the activity of the sun, the earth's slight wobble on its axis and minor changes in ocean currents.
I just do not understand why the left thinks it needs to link pollution and climate in order to fight pollution. Well, maybe I do. Its not about climate or pollution, its about controlling the actions of people and stopping capitalism. Its a leftist movement towards a world socialist government, led by a very small group of elites who think that they know how the rest of us should live---------------if you think about it rationally, you would understand that this is really what the AGW religion is all about.
The articles you cited are rubbish.
So you say, and yet I see nothing from you showing that to be so. All we have is your bald claim to that effect.
Dude, believe whatever you want to believe. I really don't give a shit what you believe or what nonsense has been shoveled into your brain by your handlers.
Man is not changing the climate of planet earth, never has, never will. Polluting, yes, changing climate, no.
Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?
I don't believe that. I accept that certain types of pollution are climate change catalysts, not a form climate change itself.
Seriously?
People living in an unnatural environment where the change in the air causes lung diseases, skin problems and disease, eye problems and other health problems, where the air stinks...on an ongoing basis...is not a form of climate change?
Perhaps you should visit a few Chinese cities....
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 66,968
- 17,023
- 2,190
A car is going to move forward when coasting down a hil but if you push the gas or break you are going to effect the speed of the progression.When it comes down to it reduction of pollution and respect for our environment is all we can really do. It doesn't matter if there is a link between mans actions and climate change. We should all be able to agree that the cleaner we live the better for all.trying to understand what is really behind the left's obsession with "man made climate change".
If its reducing man made pollution, I am all in with them. So are 99% of the people of planet earth.
If its an unproven link between pollution and climate, its bunk and not necessary----- if the goal is reducing pollution
If its controlling human activity, which I believe it is, then they can stick it where the sun never shines.
Liberals seem to think that they know how the rest of us should live and want to force us to live as they dictate, where to set our thermostats, what kind of light bulbs, what kind of cars, what kind of food, how our power is generated, where we can travel, and what we must believe---------------because they have all the answers and they are always right.
Listen libs, pollution is bad, everyone wants to stop pollution. You don't need a fake link between pollution and climate to make the case for stopping pollution. Soooooooooo, your real issue has to be control of the actions of others.
Comments?
Now yes, there are wingnuts on the left that point to doomsday and want too much government control/regulations over our daily lives... and there are rightwing nuts that focus on discrediting all environmental discussion because they don't really give a shit what they do as long as they can make a buck. I believe the majority of people fall in the middle. They don't want big business and our government destroying our habitat, they support development of clean energy methods, they support infrastructure that keeps our water and air clean, and they support better education about environmental issues.
It would be great to have a constructive discussion about the best ways to move forward without the voices of the wingnuts taking over.
I am sorry it is not wing nuts as you describe it...
Every major Scientific Organisation and even the major global Oil Companies(Exxon, Shell,...) now admit that man made climate change is real. There is only a handful of scientists who are paid off or relying on unverified or false data... Some of the people who have tried and defend to sceptic view don't even know the difference between Climate and Weather...
wrong, wrong, wrong. What they all agree on is that man made pollution is real. The link between pollution and climate is based on THEORIES AND ASSUMPTIONS.
climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years and will be changing hundreds of millions of years after the last human lives on earth. Man has never had anything to do with it. Even if there was a nuclear war, the impact on climate would be temporary in terms of the life of our planet.
It baffles me how people like you can't understand and how you can adamantly deny the effects that mans increasing and decreasing elements that effect the homeostasis of our planet, has on our climate
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Save your semantically derived argument for someone who's likely to cotton to such sophistry.your gullibility is amazing. The articles you cited are rubbish.
Everyone agrees that we need to reduce human caused pollution of our air and water---------------EVERYONE.
But when you try to create a fake link between pollution and climate you lose at least half of the people since at least half of humanity is capable of rational thinking and realizes that climate is controlled by the activity of the sun, the earth's slight wobble on its axis and minor changes in ocean currents.
I just do not understand why the left thinks it needs to link pollution and climate in order to fight pollution. Well, maybe I do. Its not about climate or pollution, its about controlling the actions of people and stopping capitalism. Its a leftist movement towards a world socialist government, led by a very small group of elites who think that they know how the rest of us should live---------------if you think about it rationally, you would understand that this is really what the AGW religion is all about.
The articles you cited are rubbish.
So you say, and yet I see nothing from you showing that to be so. All we have is your bald claim to that effect.
Dude, believe whatever you want to believe. I really don't give a shit what you believe or what nonsense has been shoveled into your brain by your handlers.
Man is not changing the climate of planet earth, never has, never will. Polluting, yes, changing climate, no.
Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?
I don't believe that. I accept that certain types of pollution are climate change catalysts, not a form climate change itself.
Seriously?
People living in an unnatural environment where the change in the air causes lung diseases, skin problems and disease, eye problems and other health problems, where the air stinks...on an ongoing basis...is not a form of climate change?
Perhaps you should visit a few Chinese cities....
Seriously?
Did I stutter? I thought I was quite clear about what I think pollution is and how it relates to climate change. So, yes, seriously.
I don't believe that. I accept that certain types of pollution are climate change catalysts, not a form climate change itself.
People living in an unnatural environment where the change in the air causes lung diseases, skin problems and disease, eye problems and other health problems, where the air stinks...on an ongoing basis...is not a form of climate change?
Yes, I think "the change in the air" is climate change, but the stuff that changed the air, the stuff in the air, is not climate change; it's pollution. The "change" and the "stuff" that effects the change are not the same things and I'm not going to conflate them.
Perhaps you should visit a few Chinese cities....
Will Shenzhen, Dalian, Shanghai, Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Chongqing, and Lanzhou do? Going to any of them, and what one'll find in the air there, isn't going to alter the difference between pollution and climate change.
Last edited:
Richard-H
Gold Member
- Aug 19, 2008
- 11,482
- 4,116
- 315
Save your semantically derived argument for someone who's likely to cotton to such sophistry.
So you say, and yet I see nothing from you showing that to be so. All we have is your bald claim to that effect.
Dude, believe whatever you want to believe. I really don't give a shit what you believe or what nonsense has been shoveled into your brain by your handlers.
Man is not changing the climate of planet earth, never has, never will. Polluting, yes, changing climate, no.
Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?
I don't believe that. I accept that certain types of pollution are climate change catalysts, not a form climate change itself.
Seriously?
People living in an unnatural environment where the change in the air causes lung diseases, skin problems and disease, eye problems and other health problems, where the air stinks...on an ongoing basis...is not a form of climate change?
Perhaps you should visit a few Chinese cities....
Seriously?
Did I stutter? I thought I was quite clear about what I think pollution is and how it relates to climate change. So, yes, seriously.
I don't believe that. I accept that certain types of pollution are climate change catalysts, not a form climate change itself.
People living in an unnatural environment where the change in the air causes lung diseases, skin problems and disease, eye problems and other health problems, where the air stinks...on an ongoing basis...is not a form of climate change?
Yes, I think "the change in the air" is climate change, but the stuff that changed the air, the stuff in the air, is not climate change; it's pollution. The "change" and the "stuff" that effects the change are not the same things and I'm not going to conflate them.
Perhaps you should visit a few Chinese cities....
Will Shenzhen, Dalian, Shanghai, Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Chongqing, and Lanzhou do? Going to any of them, and what one'll find in the air there, isn't going to alter the difference between pollution and climate change.
You are missing up the terms 'pollutant' and 'pollution'.
The 'stuff that changed the air' are the pollutants. The change in the air is 'pollution'.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Dude, believe whatever you want to believe. I really don't give a shit what you believe or what nonsense has been shoveled into your brain by your handlers.
Man is not changing the climate of planet earth, never has, never will. Polluting, yes, changing climate, no.
Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?
I don't believe that. I accept that certain types of pollution are climate change catalysts, not a form climate change itself.
Seriously?
People living in an unnatural environment where the change in the air causes lung diseases, skin problems and disease, eye problems and other health problems, where the air stinks...on an ongoing basis...is not a form of climate change?
Perhaps you should visit a few Chinese cities....
Seriously?
Did I stutter? I thought I was quite clear about what I think pollution is and how it relates to climate change. So, yes, seriously.
I don't believe that. I accept that certain types of pollution are climate change catalysts, not a form climate change itself.
People living in an unnatural environment where the change in the air causes lung diseases, skin problems and disease, eye problems and other health problems, where the air stinks...on an ongoing basis...is not a form of climate change?
Yes, I think "the change in the air" is climate change, but the stuff that changed the air, the stuff in the air, is not climate change; it's pollution. The "change" and the "stuff" that effects the change are not the same things and I'm not going to conflate them.
Perhaps you should visit a few Chinese cities....
Will Shenzhen, Dalian, Shanghai, Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Chongqing, and Lanzhou do? Going to any of them, and what one'll find in the air there, isn't going to alter the difference between pollution and climate change.
You are missing up the terms 'pollutant' and 'pollution'.
The 'stuff that changed the air' are the pollutants. The change in the air is 'pollution'.
You are missing up the terms 'pollutant' and 'pollution'.
No, I'm not "missing up" [sic] those two terms:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 53
- Views
- 386
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 189
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 126
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 117
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 18
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 40
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8487
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 481
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-