Question for those who believe in climate change

[konradv]

The climate is changing and in fact it has never been static. If someone is damn fool enough to think that changes can be altered or stopped through human action then no amount of logic will likely dissuade them.
Throughout the history of mankind he has learned to adapt to changes and the focus should be on continuing to do so.

Why are those who believe humans can effect the climate any more hard-headed than those who don’t? Isn’t it a fact that CO2 and certain other gases can absorb energy and re-emit it later? Haven’t the concentrations of those gases been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution?

 

[Votto]

Due to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl the nuclear power industry was stymied for many years. Activists are always around. And they always think they are right, and never wrong. We have many people to take care of in our world. The newest reactors are much safter than the old American ones, which were and are safe.

Exactly correct!!

Nuclear power is the ONLY carbon free viable energy source to meet the needs of society.

But the Left views it as dangerous to the environment by citing examples such as Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.

However, modern technology has advanced to where they can built nuclear reactors that do not have the capacity to ever melt down like that since that was 1960's technology.

It would be expensive and take some time to build but if the planet is dying and this is the only viable alternative, how bad can it be?

Since the Left opposes this, I can only assume they don't believe the climate hype either. They just want to take our freedoms and wealth.

 

[candycorn]

But the Left never explains what the goals are, other than less of something

The goal was to stop polluting the air and causing the climate to becomes so unstable.

Are you really this dense?

 

[JoeB131]

So there is no price that is too high to pay?

Is that what you are saying?

If the alternative is, "We are all going to fucking die", um, yeah.

I guess in 100 years, when humanity is deciding to cull half the population, you will just hope that your descendents will be the "lucky ones".

 

[rightwinger]

Why can’t we just admit there is nothing humans can do that can harm the Earth. The Earth is one, tough, son of a bitch piece of rock. Whatever we do to it, the Earth will still be here.

We may not.

 

[candycorn]

Exactly correct!!

Nuclear power is the ONLY carbon free viable energy source to meet the needs of society.

But the Left views it as dangerous to the environment by citing examples such as Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.

On this we agree. Nuke power has been powering ships in the navy for 60+ years and has been incredibly safe in all environments. The liberals are completely out to lunch on this front...provided that we use the Navy to run the plants or, as an alternative, instill their command and control systems. Still much better to have USN personnel 100% in control of the plants.

Imagine how much more ground the right would gain if they didn't couch every policy as some sort of "good versus evil" nonsense?

 

[Votto]

Are you denying the climate is changing?

The climate is always changing, always has, always will.

In fact, scientists estimate that dino's expended far more carbon with flatulence than we expend today. Maybe they farted themselves into ex"Stink"tion.



And it is not just planet earth. All the planets in the solar system is heating up since the sun is naturally expanding. In fact, the sun will someday expand before it dies and engulf the entire earth!

Yay

As for human activity warming the climate, I believe it contributes.

For example, the warmth around a city is always more than the surrounding area. The real question is, how much do humans contribute and how dire is the threat?

I can tell you this, electric cars is laughable as a solution, especially when you have fossil fuels providing electricity for those cars. Crazy. . It's just a feel good placebo that will only hurt us all economically and make driving only available for the rich.

 

[konradv]

I, personally, believe in 'low hanging fruit' and nuclear power. One easy thing is to cut down our fossil fuel use.

I prefer renewables and more research dollars into fusion.

ITER - the way to new energy

 

[Votto]

I prefer renewables and more research dollars into fusion.

ITER - the way to new energy

Fusion is the gold standard for which they are not technologically advanced to realize

For now, they need to use what they can, which is fission.

 

[22lcidw]

If the alternative is, "We are all going to fucking die", um, yeah.

I guess in 100 years, when humanity is deciding to cull half the population, you will just hope that your descendents will be the "lucky ones".

There are "culling's" due to haves and have nots. Americans more than ever in our history are into themselves more than most people in the world. Things like that cause culling's. There are people in power who have descendants for centuries who have had power. Lots of wars. Lots of culling's. People educated today to hate the white race. With many white doing the hating. Of course, they live good. And the kicker is the other races and/or cultures and anything gender answer to the European white masters who are authorizing all of this.

 

[22lcidw]

I prefer renewables and more research dollars into fusion.

ITER - the way to new energy

If a part of the nation has hundreds of years of natural gas, they should hook up that area with all of the natural gas they can use. It is true coal is in decline. However modern coal plants with scrubbers are cleaner than anything in the past. In areas where life exists and is dependent, they should hook up people to get energy off it where it is not negative to employment and living with comforts. Very few Progs will live off the grid. Frankly, most will die. So, it has to be others at fault for them not to have all of their comforts and damn it, it is not clean and green. New energy has to be affordable. Much of the world is not living with comforts. And destroying the parts that do have comforts and excess wealth to help others is a reason for massive conflicts which will reduce the population to what Prog Socialists globalists want anyway.

 

[Votto]

There are "culling's" due to haves and have nots. Americans more than ever in our history are into themselves more than most people in the world. Things like that cause culling's. There are people in power who have descendants for centuries who have had power. Lots of wars. Lots of culling's. People educated today to hate the white race. With many white doing the hating. Of course, they live good. And the kicker is the other races and/or cultures and anything gender answer to the European white masters who are authorizing all of this.

The Left, which is destructive regarding everything as it is nothing more than a cancer, is just looking to use the issue to destroy and all economic prosperity.

Problem is, they rule the roost

Nuclear power would provide much cheaper energy in the long run, which is why I think the Left opposes it.

 

[2aguy]

Sometimes you've just got to wonder...

You don't know what you are talking about....

If you don't believe that, then look at the series of charts below, which are taken from government sites, that depict trends in hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and wildfires — all of which should be, according to environmentalists, on the uptrend.

What do you see in these charts. There is no trend in any of them.
-----
Look at the data on drought conditions, from the EPA. There is no meaningful increase from 1900 to 2016. In fact, the past decade has been relatively mild on the drought front, with several years below average.

The same is true when it comes to tornadoes. The number of tornadoes in 2014 was below the number in 1954, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association data show. Indeed, the trend line seems to indicate that tornado activity has been lower since the mid-1980s than it was in three decades before that.

What about hurricanes? Yes, this year was a bad one in terms of the number and damage caused by hurricanes. But these storms came after years of lower than normal hurricane activity, both in the Atlantic and in the Pacific. NOAA data show the annual Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) in each region going back to 1970.

As NOAA explains "The ACE index is used to calculate the intensity of the hurricane season and is a function of the wind speed and duration of each tropical cyclone." Can anyone see a discernible upward trend in this index in the past 46 years? As with tornadoes, the index seems to have declined since the 1980s.

Wildfires? Sorry, but as with the other natural disasters, there's nothing here to validate the environmentalists scare stories, either. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, there were 67,743 wildfires in 2016. That's down from more than 85,000 in 1986. By December 22 of last year, there had been about 66,000 fires, NIFC data show.

Despite What You've Heard, The Weather Isn't Getting More Extreme Because Of Climate Change | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

We keep reading about how the extreme weather of 2017 is the "new normal" thanks to global warming. But the data don't show any such trends.

www.investors.com

 

[2aguy]

The Left, which is destructive regarding everything as it is nothing more than a cancer, is just looking to use the issue to destroy and all economic prosperity.

Problem is, they rule the roost

Nuclear power would provide much cheaper energy in the long run, which is why I think the Left opposes it.

Yep....they do not want plentiful, reliable, cheap energy......those things create more people, they create more freedom......the left winger is a totalitarian by nature....they have an insane, irrational, need to control..........so they clamp down on anything that allows an individual to have freedom of choice and movement....

 

[Kruska]

Irrefutable?

If you want proof of something take a math class

What would math have do with the causes? - nothing
If one can't define "irrefutably" the cause of something - then what money sum would you be willing to spend?

I can irrefutably proof to you that Africans are in civilization/cultural terms far more backward then Asians or Europeans. So how much money do you want to spend to change that?
And on what?

Just education?
Taking over their governments?
Special programs to get them out of their tribal mindset?
Teaching them why people should not eat with their hands, how toilets are to be constructed and maintained?
Teaching them that Slash-and-burn agriculture isn't a great idea?
How to set up rudimentary windmills that can pump groundwater - instead of waiting for the water truck?
How to get roads done without - foreign or UNICEF aid, paying for road construction machines?
Or don't do anything because some people say that Africans are genetically born dumber?

You propagate Nuclear power - which as I had mentioned many times, would have logically reduced the CO2 output via industrial plants and households. So tell me what % impact does the Man-made CO2 output have on the overall CO2 measurement? - if you don't know "irrefutably" - then why would you propagate spending trillions on nuclear power-plants? because math tells you that, or your neighbor?

You obviously refute the existence of Climate change - therefore you start a dumb and meaningless thread - to please your own ignorance and that of your ignorant followers.

 

[2aguy]

Sometimes you've just got to wonder...

You really are a dupe......and will believe anything......

Sorry Global Warmists, But Extreme Weather Events Are Becoming Less Extreme

While activists attempt to spin a narrative of ever-worsening weather, the objective facts tell a completely different story.

www.forbes.com

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

This question is for those who believe in climate change.

Is there any price not worth paying to try and decrease the global temperature? Is there a freedom you would not part with, a monetary price that is too high, or a moral boundary you would not cross to decrease population levels to try and achieve your climate utopian goals?

Do you have children? Grandchildren? If so, do you not want to leave the place in better condition than when you came in, maybe strictly for their future's sake? Or do you just not care? If the choice is between making technology advances and sacrifices right now in exchange for..well, not boiling to death or leaving a planet for our heirs that won't eventually kill them..then yes, pay the price now. Like the old commercial goes, "you can pay me now, or pay me later". Problem is, we won't be the ones doing the paying. Our descendants will.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Fusion is the gold standard for which they are not technologically advanced to realize

For now, they need to use what they can, which is fission.

Then for the moment in the near future, focus on renewables.
Fission, no matter how you slice it, always has the potential for accidents and the waste it creates hangs around..like forever.

 

[2aguy]

Do you have children? Grandchildren? If so, do you not want to leave the place in better condition than when you came in, maybe strictly for their future's sake? Or do you just not care? If the choice is between making technology advances and sacrifices right now in exchange for..well, not boiling to death or leaving a planet for our heirs that won't eventually kill them..then yes, pay the price now. Like the old commercial goes, "you can pay me now, or pay me later". Problem is, we won't be the ones doing the paying. Our descendants will.

We are leaving the world a better place and assholes like you are doing your best to wreck it......

You are either in on the scam, or you are an idiot...likely both.

As the left wing saying goes....pay me now....pay me later, give me everything you have or we will murder you..........

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

This question is for those who believe in climate change.

Is there any price not worth paying to try and decrease the global temperature? Is there a freedom you would not part with, a monetary price that is too high, or a moral boundary you would not cross to decrease population levels to try and achieve your climate utopian goals?

i would start listening if those obsessively concerned about this would throw themselves in a lava lake

if all of them did it, it should reverse the carbon numbers

if you are that worried, do fucking something