Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
ProudConservative

Do You Believe in Man-Made Climate Change?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, August1991 said:

 

1. I like America. I admire people like Trump/Musk but think that this idea of sending people to the Moon/Mars is wrong/crazy/stupid.

2. We human beings have evolved to live on our Earth, with our radioactive protection, with our gravity.

3. Heck, we cannot even recreate our gravity in space through centrifugal force. 

 

1. That's an opinion of a sort... but 'wrong' ?  Morally wrong ?

2. Science tells you this.  So you believe science then ?

3. We can, approximtely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1. It has nothing to do with ignorance, and much more to do with economic and political reality.  A deliberate choice.

2. The U.S. spends more on climate change R&D and space exploration than any other nation, because it can (and so others who don't can argue about it).

 

1. A choice to ignore reality.  The economic and political reality that surrounds such a personal change doesn't abrogate the individual failure.

2. That's completely irrelevant. Epistemology can't easily be turned into a topic about America, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. A choice to ignore reality.  The economic and political reality that surrounds such a personal change doesn't abrogate the individual failure.

 

So ?   There are lots of individual failures at many levels around the world.    Don't say there is a choice if we don't/shouldn't really have one.  

The American "deniers" have reduced GHG emissions more than the virtual signaling posers in Canada (Kyoto, Paris, etc.).

 

Quote

2. That's completely irrelevant. Epistemology can't easily be turned into a topic about America, sorry.

 

Others brought NASA up...as usual...so I am more than happy to play along.   NASA/NOAA are not Canadian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

1. So ?  

2. There are lots of individual failures at many levels around the world.    Don't say there is a choice if we don't/shouldn't really have one.  

3. The American "deniers" have reduced GHG emissions more than the virtual signaling posers in Canada (Kyoto, Paris, etc.).

 

 

 

1. So it DOES have to do with ignorance. 
 

2. Ok, there we have it.  Ignorance exists.  If you love failure and ignorance, or shrug your shoulders then ok on that.

"Knowledge-full, unfettered knowledge of its own heritage, of freedom’s enemies, of the whole world of men and ideas-this knowledge is a free people’s surest strength" Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953

"So ?  There are lots of individual failures at many levels..." Busy_Cheney2004 2020

3. Nope.  The deniers only share citizenship with achievers and people who believe in knowledge.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So it DOES have to do with ignorance. 
 

2. Ok, there we have it.  Ignorance exists.  If you love failure and ignorance, or shrug your shoulders then ok on that.

 

I love CHOICE...isn't that what the abortionists love too?   Don't confuse ignorance with willful choices.

Do we have a choice or not ?   Don't dodge the question.

(Dwight D. Eisenhower just invokes more America...just sayin')

 

Quote

3. Nope.  The deniers only share citizenship with achievers and people who believe in knowledge.  

 

Okay....then you are purposely ignorant about the deniers and achievers reducing GHG emissions more than just the woke folk.

 

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1. Do we have a choice or not ?   Don't dodge the question.

2. (Dwight D. Eisenhower just invokes more America...just sayin')

3. Okay....then you are purposely ignorant about the deniers and achievers reducing GHG emissions more than just the woke folk.

 

 

1. Yes.  You can choose to drink expired milk, too.  The system is set up so that those who drink expired milk or eat Tide pods improve the national profile by the self-attrition they invoke.

2. I have to talk hamburger language, or you won't listen.  I'm a great admirer of Ike's and visited his hometown.  The difference between us is that I see America's rise and fall as a pathstone in the longer journey of humanity.  Or maybe you see it that way too, as you seem to be ok with failure.

3. Deniers contribute to improvement less than circus clowns do.  They both offer distraction but at least the latter can get you to laugh.  "Woke" folk don't exist in any meaningful reality, they're just goblins invented by FOX news for consumers who enjoy being ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes.  You can choose to drink expired milk, too.  The system is set up so that those who drink expired milk or eat Tide pods improve the national profile by the self-attrition they invoke.

 

Many do...others have no milk at all.   Milk, oil, coal, or gas...people make choices.   The alarmists never figured on that, and lost the battle long ago.

 

Quote

2. I have to talk hamburger language, or you won't listen.  I'm a great admirer of Ike's and visited his hometown.  The difference between us is that I see America's rise and fall as a pathstone in the longer journey of humanity.  Or maybe you see it that way too, as you seem to be ok with failure.

 

Seriously ?   A "pathstone" ?   You put that kind of expectation and burden on America ?   But not other nations ?

 

Quote

3. Deniers contribute to improvement less than circus clowns do.  They both offer distraction but at least the latter can get you to laugh.  "Woke" folk don't exist in any meaningful reality, they're just goblins invented by FOX news for consumers who enjoy being ignorant.

 

If actual GHG reductions is your stated objective, I don't know why/how you can ignore the "facts" and "science" on the ground (and in the air).   No amount of climate change virtue signaling will matter as much.   Actual choices made (like natural gas) have reduced America's emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1. Many do...others have no milk at all.   Milk, oil, coal, or gas...people make choices.   The alarmists never figured on that, and lost the battle long ago.

2. Seriously ?   A "pathstone" ?   You put that kind of expectation and burden on America ?   But not other nations ?

3. If actual GHG reductions is your stated objective, I don't know why/how you can ignore the "facts" and "science" on the ground (and in the air).   No amount of climate change virtue signaling will matter as much.   Actual choices made (like natural gas) have reduced America's emissions.

1. Right, and Ike and his ilk (Ike ilk) knew that not all choices were good and desirable.  The ability to have a choice is mostly good, but even milk has a clearly marked "best before" date even if America itself doesn't.  1980 ?

2. There is more than one stone in the path.

3. Ok but these are still choices based on science, ie. well founded or "good" decisions.  Unlike "I don't believe the earth was ever warm.  My opinion is that it was not."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. Right, and Ike and his ilk (Ike ilk) knew that not all choices were good and desirable.  The ability to have a choice is mostly good, but even milk has a clearly marked "best before" date even if America itself doesn't.  1980 ?

 

Milk is still quite safe to drink up to five days after the "best by" date when properly refrigerated.    Coal, oil, and gas last much longer.

 

Quote

2. There is more than one stone in the path.

 

Paths don't require any stones...stones are a luxury.    Ike admonished the military industrial complex while presiding over the largest peacetime buildup in U.S. military power, especially nuclear forces.   Words vs. actual choices.

 

Quote

3. Ok but these are still choices based on science, ie. well founded or "good" decisions.  Unlike "I don't believe the earth was ever warm.  My opinion is that it was not."

 

The choices are made for economic and political reasons, regardless of goodness afterthought.   People still smoke cigarettes too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The choices are made for economic and political reasons, regardless of goodness afterthought.   People still smoke cigarettes too.

People don't smoke for economic and political reasons, they smoke because they want to or have to.  And they can't choose whether or not there's an impact.

Go ahead and smoke a pack a day for 30 years then choose to be cancer and heart disease free, that will work well for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

People don't smoke for economic and political reasons, they smoke because they want to or have to.  And they can't choose whether or not there's an impact.

Go ahead and smoke a pack a day for 30 years then choose to be cancer and heart disease free, that will work well for you.

 

I don't smoke, but I also don't harass those who choose to do so.   They can drink expired milk too. 

It all comes back to choice....either we have it or we don't...regardless of "anthropogenic warming".

So far...the world has chosen more warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2020 at 5:50 PM, bcsapper said:

Hollywood hates climate change so much they are having only vegan food at the Oscars. 

Maybe it never occurred to them to cancel the Oscars

As I have said here so many times already. The ones who preach about global warming are the ones who never really practice it. They just want the many stupid people out there to believe their lies, and try to get those people to practice what they preach,  while the likes of Al Gore, David Suzuki and Leo Decrapio can continue on with their lifestyles of the rich and famous. Personally? I do not believe that anyone knows what the hell is going on and what they are talking about. All I can say here is that I am never going to give up my not so rich lifestyle for anyone. 

The western world's population is about approx. 8% in total while in the non-western world the population is approx. 92%. Is it safe to say that it is the non-western developing countries of the world who are producing and contributing more to global warming than the people in the west are doing? If that little leftist liberal darling Greta Thornburg were to go to India or China as two examples and go preach there maybe then we might take her a little more serious. When I see her preach global warming in one of those two countries she might then start to show some credibility. But I have my doubts that she ever will go to India or China. Her handlers probably already know that she would never be welcomed there, right? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty weird to me that deniers are coming around but still get their news from the bullshit sources that lied to them for so long.

 

That's choice I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 8:20 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I don't smoke, but I also don't harass those who choose to do so.   They can drink expired milk too. 

It all comes back to choice....either we have it or we don't...regardless of "anthropogenic warming".

So far...the world has chosen more warming.

I drink expired milk.  I don't know who puts those dates on the bottles, but my milk is good for at least a week after the date.  Sometimes longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 12:49 PM, Hal 9000 said:

Wait, are we talking about climate change or "man made" climate change?

 

True, the climate has changed constantly since forever but the degree of change that normally happens over many centuries has now happened in mere decades. And one effect of global warming can be bitter winter weather events because of the change in the jet stream, and global warming can actually cause more snow because it encourages precipitation. 

It's not climate change but the rate of climate change that's causing the problems. And it's the rate that's man-made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Grand Mal said:

True, the climate has changed constantly since forever but the degree of change that normally happens over many centuries has now happened in mere decades. And one effect of global warming can be bitter winter weather events because of the change in the jet stream, and global warming can actually cause more snow because it encourages precipitation. 

It's not climate change but the rate of climate change that's causing the problems. And it's the rate that's man-made.

Yeah the whole rate thing just seems to go over their heads, for example take the ones who talk about how wonderful things will be when all the plant food we're pumping into the atmosphere causes the Sahara to become the planet's breadbasket.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Yeah the whole rate thing just seems to go over their heads, for example take the ones who talk about how wonderful things will be when all the plant food we're pumping into the atmosphere causes the Sahara to become the planet's breadbasket.

Climate change over centuries is a good thing. For one thing, evolution makes genetic diversity happen. Every species, including homo sapiens, benefits from genetic diversity. When evolution stops stagnation sets in. Cheetahs in Africa are an example- they're inbred like a bunch of toenails to the point where they're incapable of adaptation. 

But this accelerated climate change is bad for every species on earth, plants, animals, everyone. We are one of the most adaptable, we'll survive, but many of us will suffer from it. It's already affecting people who live close to me. The increase in carbon dioxide dissolved in the sea water lowers the pH level slightly and certain shellfish aquaculture has become unviable because their shell formation is inhibited. This is in shallow water off Vancouver Island and people have been laid off because of it. It's affecting underground infrastructure in the Arctic too. The permafrost is changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grand Mal said:

Climate change over centuries is a good thing. For one thing, evolution makes genetic diversity happen. Every species, including homo sapiens, benefits from genetic diversity. When evolution stops stagnation sets in. Cheetahs in Africa are an example- they're inbred like a bunch of toenails to the point where they're incapable of adaptation. 

But this accelerated climate change is bad for every species on earth, plants, animals, everyone. We are one of the most adaptable, we'll survive, but many of us will suffer from it. It's already affecting people who live close to me. The increase in carbon dioxide dissolved in the sea water lowers the pH level slightly and certain shellfish aquaculture has become unviable because their shell formation is inhibited. This is in shallow water off Vancouver Island and people have been laid off because of it. It's affecting underground infrastructure in the Arctic too. The permafrost is changing.

Thing's are declining out in the deeper water where I used to make a living too.

Hard times in the past were usually good times for fishermen and when fishermen did good the towns they lived in did better than others but this time....there just won't be as much to base a recovery on I'm afraid.  There's a reason why some economists regard fishing communities as being like canaries in a coal mine. When they suffer there's probably something wrong, when they keel over and don't recover things are probably really wrong and they're pretty much on the verge of keeling over everywhere you look around the planet.

But like you say we're adaptable and we'll do just fine in a future that's dominated by weeds, invasive species and an ocean full of jellyfish - we're the weediest most invasive species on the planet and I'm sure we'll have no problem convincing people to eat jellyfish, they love low ph conditions, they're easy to catch and they'll probably make a good compliment to rats, Scotch broom (you can blame the Romans for spreading that) and whatever else adapts along with us.

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 9:14 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Yes.  You can also agree on the science and decide to do nothing about warming.... to take a chance or just hope things level off.

That's not the same as saying "In my opinion scientifically proven facts are not true".  That's ignorance in its purest form - with hubris.

Agreed.  But anything done about warming needs to include China and India.  But under the Paris Accord they're allowed to increase emissions until 2030.  So basically the earth will be spinning it's tires for another 10 years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2020 at 7:25 PM, dialamah said:

 

Mitigation is not the same as "solving".  If all the efforts made in the articles I'd cited had not been made, we'd be that much worse off now.  The less we do now, the worse it will be later financially and all other ways. 

My argument is not that we can stop or reverse climate change, only that we should be willing to do whatever we can to mitigate its effects.  Too many are not - because China/India (who are actually doing more than Canada towards mitigation) or because it's a "carbon tax" (which economists have identified as one of the least expensive/painful ways to reduce fossil fuel use) or because "I like meat; how dare climate hysterics take away my meat".

And then those people also attack a 16-year-old - one of the people who will have to bear the burden of climate change - for asking us to take some responsibility and do our part now. 

Complete and utter nonsense.  China has increased emissions substantially every year, and will do so until 2030, when they might decide to cut a bit, or might decide not to.  They're also building coal power plants every couple of weeks.  You're in complete denial, or delusional.  I'm not sure what's worse.  It's good of you to carry water for Communist China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shady said:

Agreed.  But anything done about warming needs to include China and India.  But under the Paris Accord they're allowed to increase emissions until 2030.  So basically the earth will be spinning it's tires for another 10 years.

I gave you a LIKE because I thought you taught me something about flaws in the Paris Accord - but according to this you are mistaken.  Not a problem, though, as the EPA head himself seems to be the source for this bad information so you can hardly be blamed

https://www.journalgazette.net/news/fact-check/20170414/fact-check-do-china-india-have-obligations-before-2030-under-paris-climate-accord

 

You appear to be quoting aspects of the Kyoto Accord not Paris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shady said:

Agreed.  But anything done about warming needs to include China and India.  But under the Paris Accord they're allowed to increase emissions until 2030.  So basically the earth will be spinning it's tires for another 10 years.

According to this Canada isn't expected to meet its Paris Accord targets until 2230.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/04/25/analysis/canada-pace-meet-paris-climate-target-two-centuries-late

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eyeball said:

According to this Canada isn't expected to meet its Paris Accord targets until 2230.

 

No big surprise...Canada was already an epic FAIL for Kyoto.

Just add Paris to the list.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

According to this Canada isn't expected to meet its Paris Accord targets until 2230.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/04/25/analysis/canada-pace-meet-paris-climate-target-two-centuries-late

Yep, no big surprise.  Although even if we reduced our emissions to zero.  It wouldn’t do anything to stop climate change considering China throws out more carbon in a week than we do in a year, and they’ll do that for at least another 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shady said:

Yep, no big surprise.  Although even if we reduced our emissions to zero.  It wouldn’t do anything to stop climate change considering China throws out more carbon in a week than we do in a year, and they’ll do that for at least another 10 years.

Can you imagine the screaming you'd have been be engaged in if our puny capacity to contribute to the cause was cited as an excuse for not fighting Hitler?

In any case if China and India aren't pulling their weight we have no business selling them the means to to pull it even less. Speaking of tyrants no one seems to be very keen on addressing how it is after sacrificing trillions of dollars and millions of lives trying to keep oil out of the hands of communist dictatorships people can't get it into their hands fast enough.  What's with that anyway?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
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.


×
×
  • Create New...