Climate Change Discussions

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

I think this topic is very important and should not be categorized as political. The problem is that there are those who have made it political. It affects us all, as we can see with the latest hurricane, which caused so much damage and flooding because according to the experts contained more water and flooding effects because of global warming.

[Keefelane66]

True

[fdpaq0580]

A very serious issue that is polarizing, sadly, along political line in many cases. If party A spokesperson points to a problem, the party B will try anything to discredit that person and party A. Later, party B may even return to the problem, after renaming it, and act like it is new and they discovered it. Such is politics. Never credit the other party for anything good, ever.

[MartinSE]

I agree with your post, except I disagree with pointing to any single event and suggesting it was caused by Global Warming/Climate Change.

But, yes, some have chosen politics and common sense (*ahem) over science. The scientists may not be 100% correct, but they are not 100% wrong ether.

[fdpaq0580]

oxo

[fdpaq0580]

Any single event could easily be the first, or one of many heretofore unrecognized symptoms of climate change. Actually, global warming/climate change was a thing before the first brave politician ever mentioned it. Brave because he knew he was signing his political death warrant and would be subjected to ridicule.
The question, can man effect the climate?
Can an insect effect the life of a building?
I say "yes" to both questions.
The building may have an expected lifespan. A single insect can't do much. But hundreds of thousands of termites can certainly contribute to the early demise of that structure.
Likewise, earth with a smattering of humans probably wouldn't notice us. But with billions scouring the earth and destroying habitats and devouring resources. Yes! I do think human activity is definitely having an effect. And billions more to come from the billions here already.
Like lemmings who over populated and destroyed their island home, they jump in the sea and hope to find another home. We live on an island in space. How soon before we over populate and the planet can't cope? We are not yet able to, figuratively speaking, jump off this island and start swimming.

[JMintzer]

It's a shame we don't already have a thread on Climate Change...

Wait, what?

[Bobendres]

I don’t believe it’s settled science. There are many scientists who dispute the notion that mankind has an effect on climate. Unfortunately - the topic is a third rail - which prevents an honest and apolitical discussion on it. For example - being labeled a climate change denier. Always a label

[midiwiz]

I think this topic is very important and should not be categorized as political. The problem is that there are those who have made it political. It affects us all, as we can see with the latest hurricane, which caused so much damage and flooding because according to the experts contained more water and flooding effects because of global warming.

all you guys are pretty funny, thanks for the chuckle. A few of you have it correct - some agree some don't. The real fact here is that no one considers that hundreds of years ago Florida was only a nib not the long penninsula that it is today. You also don't count that a lot of the coast has been more or less manufactured. That part has nothing to do with any science, it's just human stupidity.

I raw numbers historically there is now enough data to quantify any of this, it's merely theory that those that need something to whine about are now whining about. Through the years this has been a topic I have noticed many facts appear from different sources some counting extremely minor degree changes (<3) to cycles being presented as well. No matter what data you think you have that potentially proves it, it actually doesn't due to other data.


To cut to the chase - it's real simple - any person that feels that a small group of people, 1 person, or a large group of people can actually change mother nature is far out of their mind. From all the activists on this topic I have seen and spoken to, I really want part of whatever it is they are smoking it's got to be killer. Respect Mother Nature, she shook her skin off centuries ago because she had a problem with what was on her....she can do it again. While the human species is actually dumb enough to wipe itself out, I think Mother Nature will beat them to it. Don't fight it, you definitely will not fix anything - not ever - not in our lifetime either. To think you will, again can I have some of what you are smoking?

[bobandbea]

I think this topic is very important and should not be categorized as political. The problem is that there are those who have made it political. It affects us all, as we can see with the latest hurricane, which caused so much damage and flooding because according to the experts contained more water and flooding effects because of global warming.

Whether there is climate change or not is not a discussion that would be fruitful as some will quote "experts" who believe in climate change and others will quote other "experts" who don't believe climate change is manmade to the point of such urgent concern. Whether climate change is something that requiers immediate concern or not is best left to the experts to deal with. The United Nations can't get the world on board with it. So for the sake of argument, let's just say Climate Change is real and needs to be addressed. The real issue that needs to be addressed is how to mitigate the perceved change. Energy is what propells the world and we need energy now while future energy needs are well thought out, studied, and planned for including clean methods to extract the required earth elements to produce energy products. In today's world, a country needs to be energy independant because we simply can't depend on unreliable political ambitions of other countries.

[golfing eagles]

Whether there is climate change or not is not a discussion that would be fruitful as some will quote "experts" who believe in climate change and others will quote other "experts" who don't believe climate change is manmade to the point of such urgent concern. Whether climate change is something that requiers immediate concern or not is best left to the experts to deal with. The United Nations can't get the world on board with it. So for the sake of argument, let's just say Climate Change is real and needs to be addressed. The real issue that needs to be addressed is how to mitigate the perceved change. Energy is what propells the world and we need energy now while future energy needs are well thought out, studied, and planned for including clean methods to extract the required earth elements to produce energy products. In today's world, a country needs to be energy independant because we simply can't depend on unreliable political ambitions of other countries.

Unfortunately, "energy independence" and "political ambitions" can be at odds with one another. After all, 3 years ago we were energy independent. Then the winds changed and we decided to follow a green agenda. So now we need to import oil once again.

[dewilson58]

Unfortunately, "energy independence" and "political ambitions" can be at odds with one another. After all, 3 years ago we were energy independent. Then the winds changed and we decided to follow a green agenda.

The wind always effects my shot at the green...........I always have a green agenda.

[srswans]

Nuclear power is the best way to replace fossil fuel usage (see IPCC, Apocalypse Never by Shellenberger, etc.).

We can argue about how much humans are affecting the climate or we can just go nuclear and have cheaper and cleaner energy. Gen IV reactors are the future.

[lpkruege1]

Any single event could easily be the first, or one of many heretofore unrecognized symptoms of climate change. Actually, global warming/climate change was a thing before the first brave politician ever mentioned it. Brave because he knew he was signing his political death warrant and would be subjected to ridicule.
The question, can man effect the climate?
Can an insect effect the life of a building?
I say "yes" to both questions.
The building may have an expected lifespan. A single insect can't do much. But hundreds of thousands of termites can certainly contribute to the early demise of that structure.
Likewise, earth with a smattering of humans probably wouldn't notice us. But with billions scouring the earth and destroying habitats and devouring resources. Yes! I do think human activity is definitely having an effect. And billions more to come from the billions here already.
Like lemmings who over populated and destroyed their island home, they jump in the sea and hope to find another home. We live on an island in space. How soon before we over populate and the planet can't cope? We are not yet able to, figuratively speaking, jump off this island and start swimming.

Thank God we have climate change. At one point in time Wisconsin was covered in glaciers. The ice age destroyed the dinosaurs. Good thing it warmed up. Man really thinks he has a lot more influence on the earth's temperature than he does. A study recently came out from NOAA that showed we are in a period of fewer severe hurricanes. Another study came out indicating the earth's orbit and tilt on our axes has more to do with our temperature. I guess it's not settled science yet.

[Stu from NYC]

Wonder if we go all green what the unintended consequences would be? We think we know so much more than we do.

[ThirdOfFive]

I think this topic is very important and should not be categorized as political. The problem is that there are those who have made it political. It affects us all, as we can see with the latest hurricane, which caused so much damage and flooding because according to the experts contained more water and flooding effects because of global warming.
Don't forget the humorous aspect.

One winter in the 1990s I was living in Duluth, MN. It gets cold there but not as bad as the rest of the state because of the moderating effect of Lake Superior. One morning I woke up to a howling windstorm. Local radio reported that the temp. was something like -35 but with the wind the windchill was approaching -115 fahrenheit. North of us was even worse. The actual temperature (not windchill) in a small town about 100 miles north of Duluth was -60, which I believe is the record for the lowest temperature ever recorded in Minnesota.

It was so cold up there that they had to call off the scheduled annual conference on--you guessed it--global warming!

[Gunny2403]

Bogus!

[ThirdOfFive]

I agree with your post, except I disagree with pointing to any single event and suggesting it was caused by Global Warming/Climate Change.

But, yes, some have chosen politics and common sense (*ahem) over science. The scientists may not be 100% correct, but they are not 100% wrong ether.
Good point. True science is nothing more or less than revising theories as more data becomes available, and climate change is certainly not immune to that.

But honestly I don't think the issue is the science at all. It is how we are conditioned to react to the science. Back in Minnesota we had a weather phenomenon called a "Canadian high", which was a high-pressure system coming down from Canada almost always in the wake of a snowstorm. Canadian highs are characterized by high pressure, clear skies, wind, and low temperature. I remember many days of -40 or less growing up there, usually in the midst of one of those Canadian highs. Major storms could cause problems, but Canadian highs didn't. They were welcome.

However some years back our esteemed National Weather Service stopped using the term "Canadian high". Such weather events were now "polar vortexes", a pretty grim term; MUCH more foreboding than "Canadian high". I remember once reading that the intent of the name change was precisely to make it sound more foreboding--the intent being to make people more aware of the danger of such an event! Which, in my not-so-humble opinion, is pure malarkey.

The overriding problem becomes the fear engendered by the science, not the science itself. And how many other such examples NOT related to weather or the science of global warming could each of us list? My list would contain probably 20 such examples and I'm sure there are examples I haven't thought of.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!" (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, from his first inaugural address)

[G.R.I.T.S.]

I think this topic is very important and should not be categorized as political. The problem is that there are those who have made it political. It affects us all, as we can see with the latest hurricane, which caused so much damage and flooding because according to the experts contained more water and flooding effects because of global warming.

It would be nice to have a forum here to openly discuss topics like this even if it drifts out of the lane. Like those at daily newspaper, there apparently some people feel we old folks can’t handle difficult discussions.
Regarding Ian, weather events adversely impact more people because more people are inhabiting areas vulnerable to said events. The more we try to “fix” a particular problem, the more damage we cause. The environmental disaster coming from lithium mining in poor countries and disposal of toxic battery waste will come to bear long after we’re gone. This generation will be blamed for that, too. Not to mention the country being beholden to other countries for our energy needs.

[Blackbird45]

This is one of the recurring topics that always seem to end up being shut down because there are two politic points. There is a way to address this and it's by approaching it in a different manner. Put climate change aside, I do not believe there is anyone here who can say we have not polluted land, sea and air. If you can agree on that much and you agree that if we do not do something about it, it's going to get worst, then you can discuss this without politics. George Carlin would say saving the planet is B.S., the planet will survive long after we're gone. when the planet is tired of us it will shake up off like a bunch of flees. So, if you have any interest in saving mankind it's time, we get off our butts and do something.

[Larchap49]

I think this topic is very important and should not be categorized as political. The problem is that there are those who have made it political. It affects us all, as we can see with the latest hurricane, which caused so much damage and flooding because according to the experts contained more water and flooding effects because of global warming.

Sorry I'm not convinced of this Global warming. Weather is cyclical, it changes trends over years just as the daily weather changes every day. Look at weather history. Oh and I don't believe that electric cars and the like will work either. Just for a minute think what powers all the equipment to mine the raw material, transport it, manufacture the batteries, transport the finished product, and dispose of the used up batteries, Also what powers the production of electricity. OIL AND COAL. In the end there is no difference in the footprint. It's all smoke and mirrors that our government and big business is perpetuating on us. We probably do need an alternate means of power but electric is not it.

[Randyj66]

Ok, so we dedicate the rest of our lives to attempt to correct a problem that some feel exists, but in reality we forget 2 major things!
1. The earth is round and spins on its axis.
2. The Earth just like every other planet out there is magnetically attracted to the sun.
With that being said, unless the entire world heeds the same warning all we are doing is wasting our time. We are just attempting to give everyone else a cleaner environment once the Earth rotates.
Second, planets are attracted to the sun then eventually supernova! This process intails consuming a planets outer gap ring first causing catastrophic warning and extreme weather patterns till the end of that planet. Sorry nothing crazy just simple science. No different than those trying to capitalize on bomb shelters, someone knows exactly how to addresses your hidden fears and turn them into reality. I can even get most to believe in Big foot too. Don't follow, look at the science!

[ThirdOfFive]

Bogus!
Well, I guess that settles it...

[Stu from NYC]

Bogus!

Prove it:ho:

[rogerrice60]

all you guys are pretty funny, thanks for the chuckle. A few of you have it correct - some agree some don't. The real fact here is that no one considers that hundreds of years ago Florida was only a nib not the long penninsula that it is today. You also don't count that a lot of the coast has been more or less manufactured. That part has nothing to do with any science, it's just human stupidity.

I raw numbers historically there is now enough data to quantify any of this, it's merely theory that those that need something to whine about are now whining about. Through the years this has been a topic I have noticed many facts appear from different sources some counting extremely minor degree changes (<3) to cycles being presented as well. No matter what data you think you have that potentially proves it, it actually doesn't due to other data.


To cut to the chase - it's real simple - any person that feels that a small group of people, 1 person, or a large group of people can actually change mother nature is far out of their mind. From all the activists on this topic I have seen and spoken to, I really want part of whatever it is they are smoking it's got to be killer. Respect Mother Nature, she shook her skin off centuries ago because she had a problem with what was on her....she can do it again. While the human species is actually dumb enough to wipe itself out, I think Mother Nature will beat them to it. Don't fight it, you definitely will not fix anything - not ever - not in our lifetime either. To think you will, again can I have some of what you are smoking?

Best reply yet!
Don't forget, in the 1960's people were claiming GLOBAL COOLING was going to tip the earth over due to the enlarging ice cap!
God's the only one who will destroy His earth.. Thank Him for His many blessings!

[Regorp]

I think this topic is very important and should not be categorized as political. The problem is that there are those who have made it political. It affects us all, as we can see with the latest hurricane, which caused so much damage and flooding because according to the experts contained more water and flooding effects because of global warming.

Logically, even if humans did not inhabit Earth, there would still be weather events like hurricane, typhoon, earthquake, and volcano, but all are natural phenomenon.

[fcgiii]

The climate is always changing.
Little of this change is under our control.
Global climate change is global
Wrecking the US Oil and gas industry on the altar of green energy is useless as long as China, India, South America, and Africa all keep growing and pumping out CO2
The only truly green energy source is nuclear power, which the green wave never embraces
The green wave is really the attempt for centralized control of the energy industry. The government already controls the health care industry, the defense industry, the banking industry, and has Big Tech and Big Ag in its grip. The pandemic wiped out much of small business.

[PersonOfInterest]

Not to worry. God has the situation well in hand and will have a solution within the next thousand years or so.

[MartinSE]

The real fact here is that no one considers that hundreds of years ago

it's merely theory that those that need something to whine about are now whining about.

No matter what data you think you have that potentially proves it, it actually doesn't due to other data.


To cut to the chase - it's real simple - any person that feels that a small group of people, 1 person, or a large group of people can actually change mother nature is far out of their mind. ?

So, you think that by making rude insults you will encourage people to accept your view?

Do you have a degree in climatology? Where did you study and have you done any post-graduate work in the field? On that's right you are on the "common sense" side of the argument.


Please explain how electricity works?'
Please explain how a nuclear reactor works.
Please explain how a microwave oven works.

Please only use common sense - since you don't please people that have devoted their lives to studying the science behind why things work

And I am sure all the scientists have very low IQs and qualify as STUPID per your remarks

[rsibole]

Any single event could easily be the first, or one of many heretofore unrecognized symptoms of climate change. Actually, global warming/climate change was a thing before the first brave politician ever mentioned it. Brave because he knew he was signing his political death warrant and would be subjected to ridicule.
The question, can man effect the climate?
Can an insect effect the life of a building?
I say "yes" to both questions.
The building may have an expected lifespan. A single insect can't do much. But hundreds of thousands of termites can certainly contribute to the early demise of that structure.
Likewise, earth with a smattering of humans probably wouldn't notice us. But with billions scouring the earth and destroying habitats and devouring resources. Yes! I do think human activity is definitely having an effect. And billions more to come from the billions here already.
Like lemmings who over populated and destroyed their island home, they jump in the sea and hope to find another home. We live on an island in space. How soon before we over populate and the planet can't cope? We are not yet able to, figuratively speaking, jump off this island and start swimming.


The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.


Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.


Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.

I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2 , 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 96 years ago. This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle farts.

[MartinSE]

Ok, so we dedicate the rest of our lives to attempt to correct a problem that some feel exists, but in reality we forget 2 major things!
1. The earth is round and spins on its axis.


Uh, what has this to do with anything?

]
2. The Earth just like every other planet out there is magnetically attracted to the sun.!

Uh, seriously? Is this intended to be sarcasm? I guess it is a magnetism that keeps you from flying off the planet into space also?


Do you have a degree in climatology? If so, from where and how long have you practiced in the field? If not, why do you feel comfortable drawing conclusions about what might or might not happen?

Oh, that's right, magnetism keeps the earth in orbit. ahem...

[ThirdOfFive]

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.


Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.


Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.

I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2 , 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 96 years ago. This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle farts.
Lol!

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

[MartinSE]

Don't forget the humorous aspect.

One winter in the 1990s I was living in Duluth, MN. It gets cold there but not as bad as the rest of the state because of the moderating effect of Lake Superior. One morning I woke up to a howling windstorm. Local radio reported that the temp. was something like -35 but with the wind the windchill was approaching -115 fahrenheit. North of us was even worse. The actual temperature (not windchill) in a small town about 100 miles north of Duluth was -60, which I believe is the record for the lowest temperature ever recorded in Minnesota.

It was so cold up there that they had to call off the scheduled annual conference on--you guessed it--global warming!

Climatologists never use anecdotal evidence to prove the theory. PERIOD. So, whoever, or where ever you heard that was caused by climate change was just wrong in saying it.

And if your intent is to say that climate change is not happening, well, you are as wrong as the people using the recent hurricane as proof it is. The recent hurricane may have been affected or may not have been, but it was not CAUSED by it.

[MrLonzo]

There's a great book on this subject called "Unsettled" by Steven Koonin. Climate change modeling is based on statistical modeling. Statistical models are found by fitting the data and are not exact. They are based on certain assumptions which may or may not be true. The underlying data may or may not be accurate. The historical data are mostly obtained from extrapolations and imprecise measurements. The conclusions are stated as fact even in light of all these uncertainties. Koonin shines a light on the whole process which has become politicized simply because very few voters are scientists and people are easily swayed using emotional arguments.

[Ptmckiou]

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.


Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.


Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.

I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2 , 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 96 years ago. This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle farts.

The whole point of science is also to measure the data. Measuring CO2 in ice cores, the planet had a predictable rate in its changes (yes there are measurable natural climate cycles). However, since the time of the industrial revolution that timeline has drastically sped up. Mankind has influenced thr planets once steady natural cycles. If you would like to use common sense instead of science data, it too leads you to the same conclusion. Of course man influences the earth. Did you ever see pictures of Los Angeles in the 1930’s? You can’t see one block down the roads because smog is so thick due to fossil burning fuels. I remember seeing it coming in for a landing at the airport in the ‘70’s. Terrible. Since California passed hard restrictions on particulate’s on vehicles and other sources, they don’t have smog days anymore. The aide is clear and smog alerts are no more, Human beings polluting the earth in whatever capacity always needs to be addressed. We should always look to bettering our environment. That is common sense. However, will we get there? Doubtful. Not because it’s not possible. Our society can’t make changes when profits are more important. Fossil fuel industry doesn’t want to lose its profits (and subsidies), and keep giving huge donations to politicians which then make voting decisions based on money, not science, and definitely not common sense.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Thank God we have climate change. At one point in time Wisconsin was covered in glaciers. The ice age destroyed the dinosaurs. Good thing it warmed up. Man really thinks he has a lot more influence on the earth's temperature than he does. A study recently came out from NOAA that showed we are in a period of fewer severe hurricanes. Another study came out indicating the earth's orbit and tilt on our axes has more to do with our temperature. I guess it's not settled science yet.

Oh, really? You need to link that study because I also saw a segment on the Weather Channel that stated the reverse, that in the last five years, 6 of the most powerful hurricanes on record have occurred. According to the information that I have read, it's NOT THAT THERE ARE MORE hurricanes because of the warming, but that they are MORE SEVERE. So, perhaps you don't have your facts correct.

Below is a link to a recent article testifying to this:

Is climate change making hurricanes worse? | The Economist (https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/09/29/is-climate-change-making-hurricanes-worse)

We need to corroborate our facts in these debates to ensure we didn't misunderstand our facts. If you can point to the study you indicated, it would be good to do. I could google it myself, but better that you do.

Also, nothing I ever read said that the Ice Age destroyed the dinosaurs. It was a collision with a comet or asteroid. Science is never settled, but it is a means to approach the truth with "a priori" evidence. It certainly is more accurate than someone spouting an idea that supports some profit-making enterprise that has no basis in science.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

The whole point of science is also to measure the data. Measuring CO2 in ice cores, the planet had a predictable rate in its changes (yes there are measurable natural climate cycles). However, since the time of the industrial revolution that timeline has drastically sped up. Mankind has influenced thr planets once steady natural cycles. If you would like to use common sense instead of science data, it too leads you to the same conclusion. Of course man influences the earth. Did you ever see pictures of Los Angeles in the 1930’s? You can’t see one block down the roads because smog is so thick due to fossil burning fuels. I remember seeing it coming in for a landing at the airport in the ‘70’s. Terrible. Since California passed hard restrictions on particulate’s on vehicles and other sources, they don’t have smog days anymore. The aide is clear and smog alerts are no more, Human beings polluting the earth in whatever capacity always needs to be addressed. We should always look to bettering our environment. That is common sense. However, will we get there? Doubtful. Not because it’s not possible. Our society can’t make changes when profits are more important. Fossil fuel industry doesn’t want to lose its profits (and subsidies), and keep giving huge donations to politicians which then make voting decisions based on money, not science, and definitely not common sense.

Couldn't have said it better.

[MartinSE]

I don’t believe it’s settled science. There are many scientists who dispute the notion that mankind has an effect on climate. Unfortunately - the topic is a third rail - which prevents an honest and apolitical discussion on it. For example - being labeled a climate change denier. Always a label

"Settled" is normally applied to law, and Facts and Theories are applied to Science. The only thing in science that could be termed "settled" are facts. And there are very few FACTs in science.

Climate change is a theory. Theories do not claim to be facts they claim to predict things based on evidence. The predictions are not necessarily 100% accurate, in fact, they most likely are not. But they are accurate enough to be used. Nuclear bombs are based on theories, not facts. The theory works well enough in predicting what will happen that they tend to go off with a big bang; the electricity that runs powers your lights, powers EVs, etc., etc., are all based on theory, not facts. We do not KNOW that there is anything called an Electron - but the theory that defines electrons works well enough to be used - daily by everyone.

The range in science is a hypothesis, theory, and fact. A hypothesis is just a little more than an idea, a guess at what might be causing something. You then test the hypothesis with experiments or data collection and analysis and see if it is matched the guess. If enough matches or enough results are predicted correctly, it is elevated to theory. When a theory is ALWAYS correct in predicting results and accurately explains the results, it is then elevated to FACT.

If the Climat change THEORY were accurate enough to predict with 100% accuracy, it would not be theory, Because it does not even claim to be fact, that means there can be other theories that attempt to explain what is happening"

Therefore, by the very nature of being a theory, the certainly will be other scientists that disagree with it; that is exactly how science works. "

Sometimes a very small number of scientists (maybe even one) come up with a better theory, and the scientific community disagrees with them. When this happens, it is up to the Scientist that disagrees with the generally accepted theory to prove it WRONG or to prove their theory is more accurate. If they manage to do either, the scientific community will eventually accept their new theory.

So far, the "scientists" that disagree with the Climate Change theory have neither proven it wrong nor provided an alternative theory. They have simply stated they don't believe it.

On the other hand, between 80% and 90% of the scientists In the entire world, not just the US, believe the theory works and is a valid theory,

The FACT that the theory is accepted around the world and not just in the US makes it hard for me to believe this is political - well, except here in the US, where we make anything scientific into a political issue.

I apologize for being long-winded; I know the desired post here is short - preferably one-liners - and should be entirely based on COMMON SENSE.

[MartinSE]

The whole point of science is also to measure the data. .

I will not debate the rest of your post or agree with it - because I don't believe I am smart enough to do it and I do not have a degree in Climatology.

But, I do challenge your opening statement. The WHOLE point of science is to understand HOW things work so that the understanding can be used to control/improve our lives. gathering data is certainly a part of learning to understand. ASnd using that data to create Theories of how things work is a part and running experiments to verify that the theory works is part

[MartinSE]

Unfortunately, "energy independence" and "political ambitions" can be at odds with one another. After all, 3 years ago we were energy independent. Then the winds changed and we decided to follow a green agenda. So now we need to import oil once again.

I disagree that we were ever energy-independent. And even if, for some brief moment in time, it did happen, it doesn't matter Also, energy is a broader field than just oil, but you seem to be using it to define independence.

Oil is a global market if we try to be independent - apart from the global economy - the first step would be for the government to take control of the oil companies and not permit them to sell oil on the global market since they would then sell ALL their oil on the global market where they could charge more and make more money. Having read your posts, I believe you are a capitalist who disagrees with socialism, where the government controls the companies/production.

[Stu from NYC]

I disagree that we were ever energy-independent. And even if, for some brief moment in time, it did happen, it doesn't matter Also, energy is a broader field than just oil, but you seem to be using it to define independence.

Oil is a global market if we try to be independent - apart from the global economy - the first step would be for the government to take control of the oil companies and not permit them to sell oil on the global market since they would then sell ALL their oil on the global market where they could charge more and make more money. Having read your posts, I believe you are a capitalist who disagrees with socialism, where the government controls the companies/production.

On a net net basis we have been energy independent. Imports were more than balanced out by exports so in a crisis we would have had enough energy to have normal economic activity.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I think the climate change deniers are terrified. They're afraid of so many things.

#1 - they're afraid that they're wrong. That's the big one.
#2 - they're afraid that they might have to make changes to the way they live. Even small changes fly in the face of the "my freedoms" mentality.
#3 - they're afraid to accept that the human species is destructive to the planet, because it means they have to accept that they are, deep in the core of their very existence, innately flawed. Not just "incorrect about this topic" or "wrong about a calculation or a left turn." But flawed, from within their DNA. The entire species - including their spouses and children, parents and best friends. All flawed, incapable of evolving if they continue to insist on denying it.
#4 - they're afraid of progress. The unknown. That which is not fully in their control. They're not control freaks, but they fear "other." Anything that doesn't jibe with their vision of existence - is dangerous or scary.

In order to combat all these things they go on the defensive. But it's a lazy defense. It's a cop-out. They mock, they poke fun, they deny. "I saw on the internet that climate change is a hoax, so I can relax now and not worry about it." "I saw this guy who says he's a scientist insist that humans have nothing to do with climate change, so I'll just point at him whenever it comes up in conversation." "I saw this elected official make fun of scientists who show the data, and I like this elected official, so I will choose to blindly agree with whatever he says because the truth requires more effort on my part."

When someone pushes back and says "no seriously - there's a problem, and it can't be "solved" but it CAN be addressed and you can help" - well they've already denied there's a problem. So they double down and get angry.

So where are we with climate change?

We're with a planet that is dying - which is what planets do. It's dying at a rate faster than it would die, had the human species not evolved to the Age of Agriculture, the Industrial Revolution, or the Age of Technology. If humans had not meddled with nature and instead, lived WITH it - the planet would not be at the stage of decay it is currently.

It will absolutely become a dead planet. All planets eventually die. But the more we meddle with it, the quicker that death comes. No amount of denying that will negate the fact. We can accept it and NOT do anything about it. We can accept it and DO something about it. We can accept it and try to destroy it even faster than we already are.

But it's happening, and we are absolutely contributing to it.

[babcab22]

I think this topic is very important and should not be categorized as political. The problem is that there are those who have made it political. It affects us all, as we can see with the latest hurricane, which caused so much damage and flooding because according to the experts contained more water and flooding effects because of global warming.

What almost everyone seems to forget is the cost of trying to "cure" Climate Change. I heard a presentation on You Tube( I believe it was Lord Moncton, the former scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher), who stated that to lower CO2 levels by even 15 points, a trillion dollars would have to be spent. He also stated that we might have to spend a quadrillion dollars or more(more than the GDP of the entire Earth) to attempt to "fix" it. As for me, I am not interested in repealing the Industrial Revolution.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

What almost everyone seems to forget is the cost of trying to "cure" Climate Change. I heard a presentation on You Tube( I believe it was Lord Moncton, the former scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher), who stated that to lower CO2 levels by even 15 points, a trillion dollars would have to be spent. He also stated that we might have to spend a quadrillion dollars or more(more than the GDP of the entire Earth) to attempt to "fix" it. As for me, I am not interested in repealing the Industrial Revolution.

We can't fix it. We can slow it down. And it's not just CO2 levels creating the problem. Nitpicking a singular "thing" and taking it out of context, then magnifying it and claiming "this is too much we can't do it at all" is a denial tactic.

[fdpaq0580]

Thank God we have climate change. At one point in time Wisconsin was covered in glaciers. The ice age destroyed the dinosaurs. Good thing it warmed up. Man really thinks he has a lot more influence on the earth's temperature than he does. A study recently came out from NOAA that showed we are in a period of fewer severe hurricanes. Another study came out indicating the earth's orbit and tilt on our axes has more to do with our temperature. I guess it's not settled science yet.

Chicxulub meteor killed the donosaurs, not "the" ice age , of which there have been several.

[fdpaq0580]

Thank God we have climate change. At one point in time Wisconsin was covered in glaciers. The ice age destroyed the dinosaurs. Good thing it warmed up. Man really thinks he has a lot more influence on the earth's temperature than he does. A study recently came out from NOAA that showed we are in a period of fewer severe hurricanes. Another study came out indicating the earth's orbit and tilt on our axes has more to do with our temperature. I guess it's not settled science yet.

Chicxulub meteor killed the dinosaurs, not "the" ice age , of which there have been several.

[MartinSE]

Nuclear power is the best way to replace fossil fuel usage (see IPCC, Apocalypse Never by Shellenberger, etc.).

We can argue about how much humans are affecting the climate or we can just go nuclear and have cheaper and cleaner energy. Gen IV reactors are the future.

I am personally anti-nukes.

I worked at the Palo-Verde power plant as a project manager for a few years and learned a lot about them. Palo-Verde has the safest history/track record of any major power plant in the country. It has been online since 1988, and it tool 12 years to build.

Generally, you are correct; the power plants are safe. They have a far safer track record than coal-fired plants.

But that is not the end of the story.

You have to consider the risk-reward. A Nuke plant failure can have catastrophic consequences. A coal-fired plant failure is almost guaranteed to be localized.

There are other concerns, such as waste removal and storage. Bad with coal (coal ash is very hazardous), but it is VERY bad with spent nuclear fuels.

Another consideration of nukes is the cost and danger of decommissioning them. It is NOT a simple thing to do and can take decades. No matter how well we build them, eventually, they do get too old to maintain. So, they are just another form of "kicking the can down the road."

Also, while working there, I learned a lot about distributed vs centralized generation - the pros and cons. The decentralized is to create small power sources locally (neighborhood or even per point of consumption) vs. a big power plant and the massive distribution grid to get the power to the endpoint. Distribution grids have losses that average 22.5%. That means 1/5 of ALL the power generated at a power plant is lost as heat by the time it gets to the end user. That is a LOT of electricity going to waste., But, you and I pay for it anyway. Centralized power generation favors big company profits but is vulnerable to massive power outages. Decentralized is harder for big companies to compete with but almost impervious to outages.

There is serious work being done on what is called micro-nukes. That is an interesting idea that combines the best of centralized and decentralized. But it is a LONG way off.

And, finally, for this post, the time to build and get a nuke plant online can be decades. While the time to bring online a wind farm or solar farm, or hydro plant can be a couple of years - including planning, impact studies, etc.,

I read somewhere that "green" energy can be brought online faster than nukes when you compare kilowatt output because of the long timeline to do the nukes.

[fdpaq0580]

Wonder if we go all green what the unintended consequences would be? We think we know so much more than we do.

Mostly good stuff, like the intended consequences, I'm guessing.

[George Page]

The earth is 4.5 BILLION years old.
Those who started the 12 year countdown clock for climate disaster a few years ago will be proven wrong.

If man never inhabited the earth there would be climate change. Man’s contribution cannot be accurately quantified, but we all know the 12 year timetable for irreversible disastrous climate change is a joke.

NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel summed it up perfectly: “Climate change isn’t a cliff we fall off, but a slope we slide down.” There is plenty of time for sensible technologies to be developed and implemented. Those who call for immediate drastic action clearly have ulterior motives. Follow the money!

[mtdjed]

Wonder if we go all green what the unintended consequences would be? We think we know so much more than we do.

I am a skeptic.

Not that climate change does/did not occur. It has been much colder and much hotter in the past for extended periods. Waters have covered Florida in hot periods and have exposed the peninsula in cold periods. This has happened without people and without technology causing the change.

But weather also occurs separate from climate change. A storm is not climate change and any claims that a single storm is evidence of climate change are unrealistic.

More dramatic changes such as diminishing icecaps or glaciers might be more realistic to consider. However, political claims of human cause and remedies are suspect for several reasons. First, is that climate change has heated the earth and cooled the earth for billions of years without human help. Second, is that proposed causes and remedies are not proven. While burning of fossil fuels may have an impact, the severity is not proven, and the proposed remedies are not certain.

The skepticism comes from politicians claiming that they know the causes and the cures for the phenomena. But even worse, trying to force their cures onto everyone. Some say too much methane from cows, hair spray destroying the Ozone layer, too much use of carbon fuels. Each of these may have some impact. However, "Climate" changes have happened in the past, before hairspray, carbon fuel use, and even when there were fewer cows.
One storm is not proof of anything regarding climate change but may be an indicator of change in the long run. But, certainly not proof of political claims of cures that aim to divide for political gain.

Yes, less use of fossil fuels may be goal for improvement when technology is ready. But let's not jump on that spaceship until we know it works and is supportable.

[golfing eagles]

I think the climate change deniers are terrified. They're afraid of so many things.

#1 - they're afraid that they're wrong. That's the big one.
#2 - they're afraid that they might have to make changes to the way they live. Even small changes fly in the face of the "my freedoms" mentality.
#3 - they're afraid to accept that the human species is destructive to the planet, because it means they have to accept that they are, deep in the core of their very existence, innately flawed. Not just "incorrect about this topic" or "wrong about a calculation or a left turn." But flawed, from within their DNA. The entire species - including their spouses and children, parents and best friends. All flawed, incapable of evolving if they continue to insist on denying it.
#4 - they're afraid of progress. The unknown. That which is not fully in their control. They're not control freaks, but they fear "other." Anything that doesn't jibe with their vision of existence - is dangerous or scary.

In order to combat all these things they go on the defensive. But it's a lazy defense. It's a cop-out. They mock, they poke fun, they deny. "I saw on the internet that climate change is a hoax, so I can relax now and not worry about it." "I saw this guy who says he's a scientist insist that humans have nothing to do with climate change, so I'll just point at him whenever it comes up in conversation." "I saw this elected official make fun of scientists who show the data, and I like this elected official, so I will choose to blindly agree with whatever he says because the truth requires more effort on my part."

When someone pushes back and says "no seriously - there's a problem, and it can't be "solved" but it CAN be addressed and you can help" - well they've already denied there's a problem. So they double down and get angry.

So where are we with climate change?

We're with a planet that is dying - which is what planets do. It's dying at a rate faster than it would die, had the human species not evolved to the Age of Agriculture, the Industrial Revolution, or the Age of Technology. If humans had not meddled with nature and instead, lived WITH it - the planet would not be at the stage of decay it is currently.

It will absolutely become a dead planet. All planets eventually die. But the more we meddle with it, the quicker that death comes. No amount of denying that will negate the fact. We can accept it and NOT do anything about it. We can accept it and DO something about it. We can accept it and try to destroy it even faster than we already are.

But it's happening, and we are absolutely contributing to it.

As for point #1, Do you think the same of Santa Claus "deniers" or Tooth Fairy "deniers"? After all, 1 fantasy is pretty much like all the others.

As for the last 4 paragraphs, where was that nonsense dug up from?
Yes, the planet will die. We have about 1.8 billion years until the early stages of the sun's death throes envelop us in its photosphere--I suppose the believers would term that "global warming". That is unless a large asteroid wipes us out first.

Will simply putting more CO2 into the air "kill" the planet??? Doubtful, there are much more powerful forces at work on our climate. 65 million years ago the planet was much warmer with more CO2 and methane than even the climate change advocates predict, but the planet is still here. Of course, Dino isn't----oh, wait, that was because the climate got COLDER.

[fdpaq0580]

Best reply yet!
Don't forget, in the 1960's people were claiming GLOBAL COOLING was going to tip the earth over due to the enlarging ice cap!
God's the only one who will destroy His earth.. Thank Him for His many blessings!

God gave us free will. We use it to terra form and trash the garden of Eden we were given. God said , "go forth and multiply", but forgot to tell us to be responsible in our growth. God will destroy the planet, but he gave us the free will and the population to make the planet less habitable. So, if you believe in God, we are just doing his will.?.

[fdpaq0580]

Not to worry. God has the situation well in hand and will have a solution within the next thousand years or so.

I was so scared, but I feel much better, now.
😏

[MartinSE]

The earth is 4.5 BILLION years old.
Those who started the 12 year countdown clock for climate disaster a few years ago will be proven wrong.

If man never inhabited the earth there would be climate change. Man’s contribution cannot be accurately quantified, but we all know the 12 year timetable for irreversible disastrous climate change is a joke.

NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel summed it up perfectly: “Climate change isn’t a cliff we fall off, but a slope we slide down.” There is plenty of time for sensible technologies to be developed and implemented. Those who call for immediate drastic action clearly have ulterior motives. Follow the money!

I am so impressed that you know the planet came about 4.5 billion years ago, I assume you are accepting the science because a significant percentage of the country's population believes it started about 5000 years ago; why is it you are right, and they are wrong? Were you there? Did you keep a diary?

I apologize if you find that insulting, that is how people who believe science feel when they are called stupid.

Second, MAN has not been around to change things for 4.5 billion years. We have only been around for about 100,000 years - depending on your definitions. And in that 100,000 years, we did nothing that would change the basic ecological balance of the planet until about 100 or 200 years ago - depending on where you start counting. Then in the last 100 years, we went from basically agricultural culture for most of the world to industrial culture for most of the world, and a population of around 1 billion people to a population of around 8 billion people. All consuming and adding to industrial demand for everything from food to transportation to housing and on and on.

Have you ever maintained a balanced aquarium? Probably not, based on your comment. Take a 100-gallon tank and keep 2 fish in it and it is easy to maintain and keep them both alive; add 200 more fish, and it gets much hard, Things go bad, and fish die.

The earth is a closed ecosystem with the exception of the sun adding energy in and heat radiating energy out. For 99.999975% of the earth's life, man did not even exist. In just the last 0.0000025% of the earth's life, we have been polluting.

I wonder what effect all that pollution might have? I am not a climatologist, so I can't say. Are you a climatologist? Because your post is simply a collection of common sense statements with nothing more to .support them, I assume you are also not a climatologist. So, I have to wonder why you have come to this conclusion.

You seem to accept science when you want to - the earth is 4.5 bill years old - but not when it doesn't feel right to you.

[Pachine58]

It’s 100% political.

First the earth needs carbon dioxide to function.
Second Mother Nature has cycles it goes thru.
Its about the science of the planet not some made made political science to scam the weak minded.

[Stu from NYC]

Wonder how many people changed their opinion of climate change since this debate first started.? Guessing none

Would be more interesting without the name calling though

[MartinSE]

I am a skeptic.

However, political claims of human cause and remedies are suspect for several reasons.

Would you please provide a reference to anyone on any of the discussions here using political claims as proof of anthropogenic climate change?

I know I personally would never base ANYTHING on ANY claim by ANY politician. I can't say the say is true of others posting here.

[fdpaq0580]

I think the climate change deniers are terrified. They're afraid of so many things.

#1 - they're afraid that they're wrong. That's the big one.
#2 - they're afraid that they might have to make changes to the way they live. Even small changes fly in the face of the "my freedoms" mentality.
#3 - they're afraid to accept that the human species is destructive to the planet, because it means they have to accept that they are, deep in the core of their very existence, innately flawed. Not just "incorrect about this topic" or "wrong about a calculation or a left turn." But flawed, from within their DNA. The entire species - including their spouses and children, parents and best friends. All flawed, incapable of evolving if they continue to insist on denying it.
#4 - they're afraid of progress. The unknown. That which is not fully in their control. They're not control freaks, but they fear "other." Anything that doesn't jibe with their vision of existence - is dangerous or scary.

In order to combat all these things they go on the defensive. But it's a lazy defense. It's a cop-out. They mock, they poke fun, they deny. "I saw on the internet that climate change is a hoax, so I can relax now and not worry about it." "I saw this guy who says he's a scientist insist that humans have nothing to do with climate change, so I'll just point at him whenever it comes up in conversation." "I saw this elected official make fun of scientists who show the data, and I like this elected official, so I will choose to blindly agree with whatever he says because the truth requires more effort on my part."

When someone pushes back and says "no seriously - there's a problem, and it can't be "solved" but it CAN be addressed and you can help" - well they've already denied there's a problem. So they double down and get angry.

So where are we with climate change?

We're with a planet that is dying - which is what planets do. It's dying at a rate faster than it would die, had the human species not evolved to the Age of Agriculture, the Industrial Revolution, or the Age of Technology. If humans had not meddled with nature and instead, lived WITH it - the planet would not be at the stage of decay it is currently.

It will absolutely become a dead planet. All planets eventually die. But the more we meddle with it, the quicker that death comes. No amount of denying that will negate the fact. We can accept it and NOT do anything about it. We can accept it and DO something about it. We can accept it and try to destroy it even faster than we already are.

But it's happening, and we are absolutely contributing to it.

Well said 👍👍

[Daddymac]

Global warming has started long ago. The earth has been warming up since the end of the ice age !! And that is a true fact.. :boom:

[fdpaq0580]

First, I certainly will gladly accept the term WEIRDO if that means I accept science as the better explanation for things I don't have the knowledge to explain.

Second, Yes, the climate has been and always will change. DUH. Nice way to divert the actual discussion. As with so many things, people tend to use common usage terms when discussing topics instead of scientifically accurate terms. For example, I am a HACKER. I have been a HACKER since around 1978. However, at some point, the term HACKER came to mean something bad. If I were to use today's "common tongue," I would be called a white hat hacker vs. a black hat hacker. But seriously, why?

Same with climate change, most of your post boils down to duh

The debate is and has ALWAYS been is the result of human activity resulting in the climate changing in ways different from what it would be doing IF man were not here doing the things we are doing. Rather than typing that entire definition every time when one discusses climate change, it is common just to say climate change. Anyone interested in discussing it and not just blowing dog whistles understands. Starting a post with "the climate is and always has been changing" brings nothing to the party expect possibly pointing out you are making a political statement instead of a science-based statement.

We could also make it a rule always to say anthropogenic climate change - but even the scientist I know don't say that when talking about it. It is UNDERSTOOD. And, in a non-scientific forum such as this, it would be taken by many (most?) and being arrogant or elitist to use accurate scientific terms when discussing science.

So we/most just say Climate Change.

And finally, your insulting post, using terms like "left", weirdos, "those that can't think", etc. Shows you are not interested in discussing anything but instead are just interested in getting brownie points with your political buddies by getting in the "best burns: If you would have posted even a single sentence you didn't read, hear of, watch but instead showed you had actually THOUGHT about it, there may have been room for discussion. So much for complaining about others not being able to think for themselves. A wise man once said when you point at someone; the other 4 fingers point back at yourself - truer in your case than most.

Sigh. I am certain it is a waste of perfectly good pixels to even bother to reply to you, but it seems I can't help myself.

Not a waste of pixels. I thought your reply was great. I enjoyed it. Well done. 👍👍

[MartinSE]

Global warming has started long ago. The earth has been warming up since the end of the ice age !! And that is a true fact.. :boom:

Anthropogenic Climate Change has started recently. No one here denies that the climate varies on its own over time, I am fairly confident 100% would agree with your statement.

[MartinSE]

No, but there are some scientists who claim imminent disaster due to human activity.

This is true; if I ignore that, you dismiss it as "some" when it is between 80% and 90% of accredited scientists that agree with anthropogenic climate change theory.


Their assertions are no different than Santa Claus.

I can only assume that statement is in jest or intended to simply insult people. Attack Attack ATTACK works in politics, not in science.

Even more frightening is that some people google these clowns and believe every word. To them I will still ask: What kind of SUV did Fred Flintstone drive? How did burning fossil fuel for the last 200 years cause 20,000 years of global warming? On that point I AM RIGHT, and you need nothing more than common sense to "prove" it.

Since you admit you are not a climate scientist and you do not have a degree in climatology, I will assume this statement is also in jest or intended to insult simply.

The information is readily available at credible sources, and you instead rant about what "people say" online. That says a lot about your intelligence and not theirs.

[fdpaq0580]

Wonder how many people changed their opinion of climate change since this debate first started.? Guessing none

Would be more interesting without the name calling though

Come on, Stu! What fun is a debate without a little "sauce" to spice it up?
😄😄

[Stu from NYC]

Come on, Stu! What fun is a debate without a little "sauce" to spice it up?
😄😄

I have enjoyed the debate and better chance it is allowed to continue if the "sauce" as you call it is at a minimum,

[MartinSE]

The earth is 4.5 BILLION years old.
Those who started the 12 year countdown clock for climate disaster a few years ago will be proven wrong.

If man never inhabited the earth there would be climate change. Man’s contribution cannot be accurately quantified, but we all know the 12 year timetable for irreversible disastrous climate change is a joke.

NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel summed it up perfectly: “Climate change isn’t a cliff we fall off, but a slope we slide down.” There is plenty of time for sensible technologies to be developed and implemented. Those who call for immediate drastic action clearly have ulterior motives. Follow the money!

NASA ASSOCIATE climate scientist Kate Marvel

BA from UC Berkeley, Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge
Double majored in physics and astronomy, Ph.D. in theoretical physics

Note she does not have a degree in anything associated with Climatology. Her resume provides NO credentials that she has worked in the field or on the models.

Instead:

"I love my job because I get to study the best place in the universe. I use satellite observations of the climate system, reconstructions of past climate change, and the output of computer models of the climate to understand what is climate change actually like, and is it happening now?

It’s great because I get to work with so much data!"

What has been your biggest challenge, professional or personal, and how did you overcome it?

I would say switching into a totally new field. I didn’t have a background in Earth science at all, but I had the raw tools of physics and math

So, she is an associate (apprentice in other fields) with no background or formal training in the field. NO EXPERIENCE AT ALL. Her own words.

Yes, let's take her word over the 80% to 90% of the scientists that have extensive training and have spent their lives working in the field

Ahem...

This reminds me of the Vets and Podiatrists and Nurses giving recommendations and predictions on virology and the pandemic, I guess some people look for anything to support their preconceived notions and jump for joy when they find an exception that agrees.

[MartinSE]

This thread gets repeated OVER AND OVER. It feels a lot like a game of wacka-mole.

Same post over and over. Attack Attack Attack. "STUPID" "MORONS" "FANTASY" on one side.

[fdpaq0580]

No, but there are some scientists who claim imminent disaster due to human activity. Their assertions are no different than Santa Claus. Even more frightening is that some people google these clowns and believe every word. To them I will still ask: What kind of SUV did Fred Flintstone drive? How did burning fossil fuel for the last 200 years cause 20,000 years of global warming? On that point I AM RIGHT, and you need nothing more than common sense to "prove" it.

Maybe. Maybe not. Only time will tell. On that point, I AM CORRECT. ☺

[MartinSE]

And the opposite opinions are readily available from other credible sources. So maybe some simple deductions are in order (assuming a minimal level of intelligence)

True, there are scientists with experience and training that do not agree with the climate change theory. Absolutely true.

About 5% disagree completely, about 5 percent challenge some of the parts and predictions and about 5% disagree with the predicted time frame. The other 80% to 90% agree it s the best we have - not nonsense.

So, I assume you would ask 100 people if it would be dangerous to do something and if 90 of them said yes, but 10 said no, and you wanted to do it, you would do it anyway.

Say, something like eating sushi at a restaurant that frequently fails its health inspection, I mean, people eat there all the time - and you like the looks of the place right?

[MartinSE]

I agree, my post is a “collection of common sense statements.” Thank you.
Yours, on the other hand, is a collection of poor, out of scale, illogical analogies.
Unless you are drastically misinformed, you know there is science supporting both sides of the climate change debate. Unlike you, I recognize both sides. However, I believe there is time to thoughtfully address the problem without negatively impacting the quality of life on the planet. Doomsday in less than 12 years?
I think not,

Okay, I will ignore the attacks and insults which seem to dominate your side of the argument.

You consider the opinion of 20% (maximum, many say less) of trained scientists more valid than the opinion of 80% to 90%.

I assume you base your choice of logical evidence on the vast background you have in climatology and a degree you got in that field - at which university was that? I missed it.

In other words, your definition of logical is to accept the advice of the minority and ignore the advice of the majority.

Please educate us on how that works.

[ThirdOfFive]

Climatologists never use anecdotal evidence to prove the theory. PERIOD. So, whoever, or where ever you heard that was caused by climate change was just wrong in saying it.

And if your intent is to say that climate change is not happening, well, you are as wrong as the people using the recent hurricane as proof it is. The recent hurricane may have been affected or may not have been, but it was not CAUSED by it.
Actually my intent was to point out that any time someone takes something as dogma, it is impossible for them to see humor in anything related to it.

[Byte1]

]So, you think that by making rude insults you will encourage people to accept your view?
[/B]
Do you have a degree in climatology? Where did you study and have you done any post-graduate work in the field? On that's right you are on the "common sense" side of the argument.


Please explain how electricity works?'
Please explain how a nuclear reactor works.
Please explain how a microwave oven works.

Please only use common sense - since you don't please people that have devoted their lives to studying the science behind why things work

And I am sure all the scientists have very low IQs and qualify as STUPID per your remarks

Huh??? :1rotfl:

[MartinSE]

Actually my intent was to point out that any time someone takes something as dogma, it is impossible for them to see humor in anything related to it.

Who is taking anything as dogma? What is your definition of dogma?

I have repeatedly stated that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a THEORY. PERIOD. It is not the bible it was not handed down from on high written on stones.

It is purely a good theory because it predicts changes that are happening, as confirmed by a decades-long study by scientists around the world.

Yes, it makes wrong predictions; yes, it changes its predictions over time - that is why it is called a theory, not a fact.

As far as humor goes, tread lightly on humor. I am willing to bet MOST of the posts here are not intended to be humous and, in fact, reflect people's beliefs and affect how they vote.

How people vote on this issue affects the lives of our children and our grandchildren if the theory is correct.

If it is wrong, it affects YOUR and MINE pocketbooks and leaves a cleaner, healthier world for our descendants.

So, yeah, unless stated as humor, I take this issue very seriously, deadly seriously. The world will not end, as many of the deniers like to claim we say, and we don't. But, life as we know it very well might. Literally, billions of lives are at stake. In a situation with lives at risk, I prefer to err on the side of caution and not on the side of personal beliefs.

Read the annual Defense Department assessment of Climate Change in the annual security report to the president. Climate Change has, for over a decade, been listed among the highest threats to our national security

But, then, who listens to the defense department? They are just stupid leftist, crazy fantasy believers.

[jimbomaybe]

Bogus!

"Bogus!" Perhaps both?, The huge amount of data that the experts have has to be weighed, how to determine what is a greater influence? more and more data is always coming in to be factored in . There are some experts who are certain of dire consequences, some being very vocal, assertive in their projections , activists if you will. They will ,being the loudest voices get more attention, right or wrong. I have trouble getting beyond my memory of being told , by experts who HAD the DATA that at this point I should be starving and freezing in the dark, maybe I should just flip a coin?

[Byte1]

So, your basic argument is insulting. Are there any scientists claiming (seriously) that there is a tooth fairy or Santa Claus? Of course not, so you were exaggerating and being sarcastic and insulting rather than actually addressing the post - as always.,

I can only assume you are not. Climatologist, even though you claim it is all fraud and fantasy. And yet you claim to be RIGHT with no proof offered. And somehow you want to claim authenticity.

Ah, maybe the political theory recently advocated, "Attack, Attack, Attack..."

Some folks seem to think that anyone that does not agree with them is "insulting" being sarcastic or attacking. Does being defensive actually work in a discussion?

[MartinSE]

Some folks seem to think that anyone that does not agree with them is "insulting" being sarcastic or attacking. Does being defensive actually work in a discussion?

Demeaning is a form of verbal/written attack. Attacking a post saying someone who posts something must also believe in the tooth fairy, with nothing posted to refute what is being discussed, is demeaning.

Your post does nothing to advance the discussion; it simply addresses my failure to accept the attacks. A one-liner drive-by with nothing about Climate Change.

Yeah, silly me.

I would LOVE to have a discussion, but very few here want to. Instead, they throw out talking points, also known as dog whistles, in some circles.

Should I be defensive? Of course not; I shouldn't have to be. But, I am tired of the drive-by insults cloaked as discussion. And I plan to address them when they occur until I am given yet another vacation.

In fact, according to the rules, posts are supposed to address the topic and not be directed at other posters - wouldn't that be refreshing posts about the topic? Unlike this one.

ahem...

[MartinSE]

Huh??? :1rotfl:

Thank you for the informative post addressing the topic of this discussion - Climate Change.

[Byte1]

Data shows that there really is "climate change." History shows that the climate has been changing since the beginning of time as we know it. Climate will change whether mankind has anything to do with it or not. Can we pollute, yes. Can we have some effect in cleaning up the air we breath, yes. Can we raise or lower the oceans? I sincerely doubt it. I do not think that qualified scientists can legitimately state that man can raise or lower the oceans. I know for a fact that the air that I breath is cleaner now than when I was a kid. Could it be because of catalytic converters on automobiles? Could it be because we use less coal to heat our homes? Man has improve our environment for at least 50 years, but has he changed the climate? I admit that I am not a scientist and not an expert, but I do know that our climate is NOT controlled by humans. We can't even predict the track of a storm with accuracy.
Personally, climate control is not on the top of my priorities since I will not even see a man made change in my lifetime. I do have one thought that some disagree with, but I have yet to hear a convincing counter argument. Whether you believe in GOD or not, we have a substantial amount of oil under us and I see no benefit of it sitting under ground doing nothing. There must be a scientific use for it, or why would GOD have made it available? Oh yeah, we can use it for fuel. Ok, so you don't believe in GOD. So, what use is oil to us? It still works as a good fuel source. Does it do the earth any good sitting under ground? You might counter argue that we also have rocks and stones on the ground and under it, and what good is it sitting there? We built homes and weapons from it, right? But, I won't go off in that direction. Electricity serves it's purpose, providing a source of energy, but it also requires a source of energy to produce it. Solar? Great for Southern states, when we have sunshine. Not so good at night or in the Northern states. Wind mills? Great when there is wind to power the wind mills. Nuclear? An amazing source of energy that is hardly tapped and still being explored for it's uses. Battery storage? We are still exploring sustainable and inexpensive means of storing power but we are not there yet. Why not all of the above and quit thinking about attaching POWER to climate change? Man can keep the world clean by picking up after himself and attempting to be clean in his environment. That may not change anything, but it will make living here better/more comfortable.
Like I said, climate change and attempting to control the climate is not within my priorities and will never effect my politics.

[Byte1]

Thank you for the informative post addressing the topic of this discussion - Climate Change.

Sorry, I just have to wonder about how folks get riled up and defensive when someone does not agree with them. The go-to is to accuse one of "insulting, exaggerating and name calling." :1rotfl:

[fdpaq0580]

Actually my intent was to point out that any time someone takes something as dogma, it is impossible for them to see humor in anything related to it.

I've noticed that! Excellent observation.

[mtdjed]

Would you please provide a reference to anyone on any of the discussions here using political claims as proof of anthropogenic climate change?

I know I personally would never base ANYTHING on ANY claim by ANY politician. I can't say the say is true of others posting here.

No mention or referral to any poster's political claims was mentioned. I was just stating my opinion. My comments were simply my observations. What others say is their opinion.

[Byte1]

From what I have heard, read and experienced, scientists have often been wrong. Their theories have been lucrative toward their future employment. It's great that they have records of temperature, rainfall and tide change history, but have they ever really been able to find a correlation between those factors and man contributed climate change? Nope, only theory. It's easy to record history, but very difficult to predict accurately the future. I believe methane has been in existence on Earth long before mankind, and without CO2 can we have plant growth? Without plant growth can we have oxygen? Kind of like arguing ecology, right? Man is at the top of the ecological food chain, or am I mistaken? However, without man the world will still survive, right? But, what's the point? Without man, the world will still have Climate Change. You might say that Climate Change is just part of Evolution.

[MartinSE]

Data shows that there really is "climate change." History shows that the climate has been changing since the beginning of time as we know it. Climate will change whether mankind has anything to do with it or not.

Thank you, I agree, and personally, I know of NO ONE that disputes this comment. If there are such people, I feel sorry for them. All they have to do is walk o0ut side and see it change daily.


Can we pollute, yes. Can we have some effect in cleaning up the air we breath, yes.

I think there is general agreement on this also.


Can we raise or lower the oceans? I sincerely doubt it. I do not think that qualified scientists can legitimately state that man can raise or lower the oceans.

Okay, Can I assume that is a personal opinion? You say you "think" this; would you share what you base that opinion on?

I know for a fact that the air that I breath is cleaner now than when I was a kid. Could it be because of catalytic converters on automobiles? Could it be because we use less coal to heat our homes?

Yes, I think we agreed on this above.

Can we also agree that the change you are referring to here is a change in our behavior that caused the problems in the first place - i.e. that we caused pollution with a behavior of driving gas-powered cars that emitted toxic poisons and pollution and corrected that behavior by enforcing regulations that required the cars (and other sources) not to put out as much bad stuff?

Man has improve our environment for at least 50 years, but has he changed the climate?

And that, sir, is the question at the heart of this discussion. Sadly, by use of the common tongue term "climate change," we conflate the assertion at the top of climate change all by itself over time with the anthropogenic greenhouse effect or anthropogenic climate change. Which, hopefully, we can all agree is what we are really talking about man-made climate change.

I admit that I am not a scientist and not an expert, but I do know that our climate is NOT controlled by humans. We can't even predict the track of a storm with accuracy.

Okay, I am also not a scientist or expert in the field of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

Can I ask how you KNOW that? Also, I would suggest that the theory does not claim that man can control the climate, only that man can affect the climate. There is, I think you will agree, a big difference between the two.

Personally, climate control is not on the top of my priorities since I will not even see a man made change in my lifetime.

Thank you for the honest statement of fact. I believe many of the posters here agree with you. I will not debate your position; that is philosophical, moral, ethical, etc., etc., a discussion which I think is way beyond the scope of this discussion.

Let me say that in my case, I have spent my life trying to make things better for other people. That does not make me a better person than you; that is NOT virtue signaling; it is simply saying I do what makes me feel good.

I make no claim of superiority; in fact, in my experience, people who believe the way you believe are typically more successful and happier than I am.

I do have one thought that some disagree with, but I have yet to hear a convincing counter argument. Whether you believe in GOD or not, we have a substantial amount of oil under us and I see no benefit of it sitting under ground doing nothing. There must be a scientific use for it, or why would GOD have made it available?

Excellent question; I am, in fact, an atheist; I wasn't always; at one time, I actually preached for a while as a stand-in for my brother the lifelong SBC preacher.

And you bring up an interesting question that is very hard to answer.

1. There is certainly a line of reasoning that God has a plan and will take care of the planet for as long as it suits his plan. Being God, there is not really anything we can do to cause that plan to be deviated from - i.e., God will clean up our messes if it suits him.

2. We are charged, per some version of the bible, with being good stewards of the land/earth god has given us. I will omit bible references; I am sure you are familiar.

From my perspective, I guess fall into the camp that God helps those that help themselves, hence medicine, science, etc

And, while outside the scope of this discussion I will in slightly peak oil, or the theory(?) that oil is a limited resource. It is limited by the material it was created from being not of infinite origin. So, while we don't know for sure how limited it is, it seems reasonable to assume it is.

In that case, we should then consider the optimum use of this very valuable resource. Some of the other uses we make of include:

Medicine, fertilizer, pesticides, etc., Here is a reference for some. There are many other uses - other than as fuel.

Petroleum in Real Life (https://context.capp.ca/articles/2019/feature-petroleum-in-real-life-pills/)


Oh yeah, we can use it for fuel. Ok, so you don't believe in GOD. So, what use is oil to us? It still works as a good fuel source. Does it do the earth any good sitting under ground?

Well, I sort of answered that above, and I don't believe in God. But, a more valid question, I think, is, what is the BEST use we can make of OIL? Since it is limited (I assume) even if we don't know how limited (years, decades, centuries, eons?) It would seem to me we would be better stewards if we made the best use of the oil, not the most convenient.

Electricity serves it's purpose, providing a source of energy, but it also requires a source of energy to produce it. Solar? Great for Southern states, when we have sunshine. Not so good at night or in the Northern states. Wind mills? Great when there is wind to power the wind mills. Nuclear? An amazing source of energy that is hardly tapped and still being explored for it's uses. Battery storage? We are still exploring sustainable and inexpensive means of storing power but we are not there yet. Why not all of the above and quit thinking about attaching POWER to climate change?

Hmm, complex. First, I am all in for natural gas for electricity generation short term (until we can develop better, Solar wind, hydro, etc., are progressing very rapidly and, with worldwide governmental support, will continue to advance even faster. Of course, it is incumbent on us not to replace one problem with yet another - so, in developing alternate sources of energy, we must try to prevent creating a new monster with even worse side effects.

But, there is always a but; COAL is among the dirtiest source of energy known to man. That is not really debatable, And it was only a result of expensive regulations that required scrubbing and other actions that we reduced some of the pollutions down to levels we can manage. And we still do not manage a major by-product of coal-fired energy product - coal ash is incredibly harmful to humans.

Oil; on the other hand, is of limited use in Electricity production - around 0.5% of our electricity is produced using petroleum liquids - I think.

We use petroleum products to propel vehicles, heat buildings, and produce electricity (0.5%). In the industrial sector, the petrochemical industry uses petroleum as a raw material (a feedstock) to make products such as plastics, polyurethane, solvents, and hundreds of other intermediate and end-user goods.

Here is a chart of many uses of oil - kindly provided by the fossil fuel industry (not that they have a vested interest - LOL)

72 Uses of Oil (https://www.iogp.org/oil-in-everyday-life/)

Man can keep the world clean by picking up after himself and attempting to be clean in his environment. That may not change anything, but it will make living here better/more comfortable.

That is very true, but some of us think there is more to do. Along lines of cleaning up the environment.

If we are wrong, we are not suggesting anything to make it worse. But if we are right, we are talking about some very serious consequences. We don't KNOW; we are suggesting we err on the side of caution. It can't hurt.


Like I said, climate change and attempting to control the climate is not within my priorities and will never effect my politics.

So, you would vote for a candidate that is in favor of taking steps to curb climate change if their other policies are agreeable to you? Considering your positions stated above, I would consider that an excellent position to take.

And I thank you for posting a comment that encouraged discussion.

[Byte1]

I don't believe in arguing a topic in circles. Either oil is a good fuel source or it isn't. For someone to say, well maybe/MAYBE we are supposed to use it for something else, is just circling the discussion. That's kind of like we shouldn't have used horses for transportation or for pulling wagons and plows before we had a combustion engine. And we shouldn't use a combustion engine because there might be something better to use that we just haven't thought of yet. Oil is a great commodity, an excellent form of power until someone comes up with something superior. Right now, EV autos are not superior, only different and have different means of producing the power required. Changing from fossil fuel to electric is not going to effect climate changing.

The whole term Climate Change is bogus. Man has no control over it, unless perhaps we had a nuclear war where fallout caused a nuclear winter. But, that too would eventually go back to normal. Let's be honest and just call it "Pollution Control" or something more truthful. If we control pollution, we can give longevity to the living and breathing. TO believe that we are like gods where we can control the climate or the rotation of the Earth, is being pretty arrogant. Yes, we CAN control pollution and that can be healthy and create a longer lifespan for living creatures. We are not going to raise or lower the oceans. We are not going to change the rotation of the Earth. We are not going to change the weather by using electricity versus fossil fuel. We can limit our infringement on the quality of our atmosphere.
Global Warming and Climate Change is a given. Man made Global Warming and Climate Change is just a gimmick. If one wishes to run amok shouting and protesting a "pollution" problem, go for it.

[ThirdOfFive]

I don't believe in arguing a topic in circles. Either oil is a good fuel source or it isn't. For someone to say, well maybe/MAYBE we are supposed to use it for something else, is just circling the discussion. That's kind of like we shouldn't have used horses for transportation or for pulling wagons and plows before we had a combustion engine. And we shouldn't use a combustion engine because there might be something better to use that we just haven't thought of yet. Oil is a great commodity, an excellent form of power until someone comes up with something superior. Right now, EV autos are not superior, only different and have different means of producing the power required. Changing from fossil fuel to electric is not going to effect climate changing.

The whole term Climate Change is bogus. Man has no control over it, unless perhaps we had a nuclear war where fallout caused a nuclear winter. But, that too would eventually go back to normal. Let's be honest and just call it "Pollution Control" or something more truthful. If we control pollution, we can give longevity to the living and breathing. TO believe that we are like gods where we can control the climate or the rotation of the Earth, is being pretty arrogant. Yes, we CAN control pollution and that can be healthy and create a longer lifespan for living creatures. We are not going to raise or lower the oceans. We are not going to change the rotation of the Earth. We are not going to change the weather by using electricity versus fossil fuel. We can limit our infringement on the quality of our atmosphere.
Global Warming and Climate Change is a given. Man made Global Warming and Climate Change is just a gimmick. If one wishes to run amok shouting and protesting a "pollution" problem, go for it.
Some years back I heard a presentation regarding a healthy environment; the main thrust of the "argument" being that North America could sustainably support no more than eleven million hunter-gatherers. Anything more might harm the environment. Though I enjoyed listening to the presentation, it was really no more than an intellectual exercise. North America is never, short of nuclear war, going to be populated by no more than eleven million hunter-gatherers.

This climate-change debate is much the same. Despite whichever side of the debate one might find oneself on, the debate itself in many cases comes down to empty words. Intellectual exercises. Economic forces will decide the course of things, just as they always do.

[rsmurano]

Remember a little history:
In the 60's, we were all told oil reserves will be depleted in 10 years
In the 70's: an ice age is coming within 10 years
in the 80's: acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years
in the 90's: the ozone layer will be destroyed in 10 years
in the 2000's: the ice caps will be gone in 10 years. (actually I've seen papers from 80 years ago with the same prediction)
How many of those predictions have come true? How many politicians benefitted from these false predictions? How much did the governments make in additional revenue from increasing our taxes to combat these propagandas?
Now there is a new 1 out there which again, people are saying we are doomed in 10 years unless we bankrupt the government by all of these new green deal tax initiatives. Doesn't it sound a little weird its always a 10 year prediction?
Also, there are 1000's of objects that use oil, not just the few that was stated here. Fiberglass/resins/paint/compressors/airplanes/hydraulic gear/lube for robot moving parts/tires/asphalt and 1000's more. When will we have wind generated 747's? when will cruise ships be operated by windmills/sails?
All of this nonsense and we have energy reserves in this country that will last us over 100 years

[MartinSE]

I don't believe in arguing a topic in circles. Either oil is a good fuel source or it isn't. For someone to say, well maybe/MAYBE we are supposed to use it for something else, is just circling the discussion. That's kind of like we shouldn't have used horses for transportation or for pulling wagons and plows before we had a combustion engine. And we shouldn't use a combustion engine because there might be something better to use that we just haven't thought of yet. Oil is a great commodity, an excellent form of power until someone comes up with something superior. Right now, EV autos are not superior, only different and have different means of producing the power required. Changing from fossil fuel to electric is not going to effect climate changing.

The whole term Climate Change is bogus. Man has no control over it, unless perhaps we had a nuclear war where fallout caused a nuclear winter. But, that too would eventually go back to normal. Let's be honest and just call it "Pollution Control" or something more truthful. If we control pollution, we can give longevity to the living and breathing. TO believe that we are like gods where we can control the climate or the rotation of the Earth, is being pretty arrogant. Yes, we CAN control pollution and that can be healthy and create a longer lifespan for living creatures. We are not going to raise or lower the oceans. We are not going to change the rotation of the Earth. We are not going to change the weather by using electricity versus fossil fuel. We can limit our infringement on the quality of our atmosphere.
Global Warming and Climate Change is a given. Man made Global Warming and Climate Change is just a gimmick. If one wishes to run amok shouting and protesting a "pollution" problem, go for it.

I replied to all this in your previous post; I guess you didn't want to discuss it after all.

I never said oil was bad fuel; I said it was dirty and cleaner alternatives were coming.

You asked what else could we do with it instead of leaving it in the ground, and I answered that even by providing Petro industry listings and another site showing how much more valuable oil is for other uses - and you ignored it.

And you said God provided it, and I suggested he also provided alternatives and instructed us to be good earth stewards.

Do you see my answering your post with my position politely as running amok? Really?

So much for discussions.

[MartinSE]

Remember a little history:
In the 60's, we were all told oil reserves will be depleted in 10 years
In the 70's: an ice age is coming within 10 years
in the 80's: acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years
in the 90's: the ozone layer will be destroyed in 10 years
in the 2000's: the ice caps will be gone in 10 years. (actually I've seen papers from 80 years ago with the same prediction)
How many of those predictions have come true? How many politicians benefitted from these false predictions? How much did the governments make in additional revenue from increasing our taxes to combat these propagandas?
Now there is a new 1 out there which again, people are saying we are doomed in 10 years unless we bankrupt the government by all of these new green deal tax initiatives. Doesn't it sound a little weird its always a 10 year prediction?
Also, there are 1000's of objects that use oil, not just the few that was stated here. Fiberglass/resins/paint/compressors/airplanes/hydraulic gear/lube for robot moving parts/tires/asphalt and 1000's more. When will we have wind generated 747's? when will cruise ships be operated by windmills/sails?
All of this nonsense and we have energy reserves in this country that will last us over 100 years

You are so right; let's make it illegal to be wrong. I also suggest any device created after the 1500s should be banned.

I apologize. I assumed that even though you did ask a question, you really were not interested in answers or discussions. If you are, then accept my apology and ask a question and I will discuss it.

Sarcasm for those impaired:

[MrChipster]

Any single event could easily be the first, or one of many heretofore unrecognized symptoms of climate change. Actually, global warming/climate change was a thing before the first brave politician ever mentioned it. Brave because he knew he was signing his political death warrant and would be subjected to ridicule.
The question, can man effect the climate?
Can an insect effect the life of a building?
I say "yes" to both questions.
The building may have an expected lifespan. A single insect can't do much. But hundreds of thousands of termites can certainly contribute to the early demise of that structure.
Likewise, earth with a smattering of humans probably wouldn't notice us. But with billions scouring the earth and destroying habitats and devouring resources. Yes! I do think human activity is definitely having an effect. And billions more to come from the billions here already.
Like lemmings who over populated and destroyed their island home, they jump in the sea and hope to find another home. We live on an island in space. How soon before we over populate and the planet can't cope? We are not yet able to, figuratively speaking, jump off this island and start swimming.
Lemmings do not commit suicide. However, this particular myth is based on some actual lemming behaviors. Lemmings have large population booms every three or four years. When the concentration of lemmings becomes too high in one area, a large group will set out in search of a new home. Lemmings can swim, so if they reach a water obstacle, such as a river or lake, they may try to cross it. Inevitably, a few individuals drown. But it’s hardly suicide.


So why is the myth of mass lemming suicide so widely believed? For one, it provides an irresistible metaphor for human behavior. Someone who blindly follows a crowd—maybe even toward catastrophe—is called a lemming. Over the past century, the myth has been invoked to express modern anxieties about how individuality could be submerged and destroyed by mass phenomena, such as political movements or consumer culture.

But the biggest reason the myth endures? Deliberate fraud. For the 1958 Disney nature film White Wilderness, filmmakers eager for dramatic footage staged a lemming death plunge, pushing dozens of lemmings off a cliff while cameras were rolling. The images—shocking at the time for what they seemed to show about the cruelty of nature and shocking now for what they actually show about the cruelty of humans—convinced several generations of moviegoers that these little rodents do, in fact, possess a bizarre instinct to destroy themselves.

[golfing eagles]

Remember a little history:
In the 60's, we were all told oil reserves will be depleted in 10 years
In the 70's: an ice age is coming within 10 years
in the 80's: acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years
in the 90's: the ozone layer will be destroyed in 10 years
in the 2000's: the ice caps will be gone in 10 years. (actually I've seen papers from 80 years ago with the same prediction)
How many of those predictions have come true? How many politicians benefitted from these false predictions? How much did the governments make in additional revenue from increasing our taxes to combat these propagandas?
Now there is a new 1 out there which again, people are saying we are doomed in 10 years unless we bankrupt the government by all of these new green deal tax initiatives. Doesn't it sound a little weird its always a 10 year prediction?
Also, there are 1000's of objects that use oil, not just the few that was stated here. Fiberglass/resins/paint/compressors/airplanes/hydraulic gear/lube for robot moving parts/tires/asphalt and 1000's more. When will we have wind generated 747's? when will cruise ships be operated by windmills/sails?
All of this nonsense and we have energy reserves in this country that will last us over 100 years

How many times do I have to say this: DON'T CONFUSE THE TRUE BELIEVERS WITH THE FACTS. Not only that, but your position that disagrees with them is viewed as "insulting"

[MartinSE]

How many times do I have to say this: DON'T CONFUSE THE TRUE BELIEVERS WITH THE FACTS. Not only that, but your position that disagrees with them is viewed as "insulting"

I didn’t find it insulting at all. I found it sad.

And yes everything posted was a fact, so? How does any of that apply to the current discussion.

[Stu from NYC]

So we are doomed unless we are not

[MartinSE]

Lemmings do not commit suicide. However, this particular myth is based on some actual lemming behaviors. Lemmings have large population booms every three or four years. When the concentration of lemmings becomes too high in one area, a large group will set out in search of a new home. Lemmings can swim, so if they reach a water obstacle, such as a river or lake, they may try to cross it. Inevitably, a few individuals drown. But it’s hardly suicide.


So why is the myth of mass lemming suicide so widely believed? For one, it provides an irresistible metaphor for human behavior. Someone who blindly follows a crowd—maybe even toward catastrophe—is called a lemming. Over the past century, the myth has been invoked to express modern anxieties about how individuality could be submerged and destroyed by mass phenomena, such as political movements or consumer culture.

But the biggest reason the myth endures? Deliberate fraud. For the 1958 Disney nature film White Wilderness, filmmakers eager for dramatic footage staged a lemming death plunge, pushing dozens of lemmings off a cliff while cameras were rolling. The images—shocking at the time for what they seemed to show about the cruelty of nature and shocking now for what they actually show about the cruelty of humans—convinced several generations of moviegoers that these little rodents do, in fact, possess a bizarre instinct to destroy themselves.

Maybe it was just that so many relate to the idea of suicide. Crowd physiology is a sad an interesting subject. And, sadly crowd psychology can be applied to both sides of this climate discussion.

[JMintzer]

So, you think that by making rude insults you will encourage people to accept your view?

Do you have a degree in climatology? Where did you study and have you done any post-graduate work in the field? On that's right you are on the "common sense" side of the argument.


Please explain how electricity works?'
Please explain how a nuclear reactor works.
Please explain how a microwave oven works.

Please only use common sense - since you don't please people that have devoted their lives to studying the science behind why things work

And I am sure all the scientists have very low IQs and qualify as STUPID per your remarks

Some would say your complaint about a rude post was quite "ahem" rude...

[MartinSE]

So we are doomed unless we are not

My wife calls me Eeyore, and we frequently say, we are doomed, we are all doomed…

Sometimes one must Laugh at oneself.

[golfing eagles]

I didn’t find it insulting at all. I found it sad.

And yes everything posted was a fact, so? How does any of that apply to the current discussion.

Seriously??? I would think that a string of failed predictions by the climate "experts" of the day would be highly relevant to their current predictions. Or is "anthropogenic climate change" the one and only true prediction???? You're right, it IS sad.

[JMintzer]

Uh, what has this to do with anything?

]

Uh, seriously? Is this intended to be sarcasm? I guess it is a magnetism that keeps you from flying off the planet into space also?


Do you have a degree in climatology? If so, from where and how long have you practiced in the field? If not, why do you feel comfortable drawing conclusions about what might or might not happen?

Oh, that's right, magnetism keeps the earth in orbit. ahem...

Asking about someone's degree is considered to be rude by the moderaters...

Ask me how I, ahem, know...

[JMintzer]

Anthropogenic Climate Change has started recently. No one here denies that the climate varies on its own over time, I am fairly confident 100% would agree with your statement.

How do you know? I mean, since you're not a climatologist... (your words, not mine...)

[JMintzer]

This is true; if I ignore that, you dismiss it as "some" when it is between 80% and 90% of accredited scientists that agree with anthropogenic climate change theory.

Even THAT stat is incorrect...

[JMintzer]

This thread gets repeated OVER AND OVER. It feels a lot like a game of wacka-mole.

Same post over and over. Attack Attack Attack. "STUPID" "MORONS" "FANTASY" on one side.

I agree. You should stop doing it...

[JMintzer]

True, there are scientists with experience and training that do not agree with the climate change theory. Absolutely true.

About 5% disagree completely, about 5 percent challenge some of the parts and predictions and about 5% disagree with the predicted time frame. The other 80% to 90% agree it s the best we have - not nonsense.

So, I assume you would ask 100 people if it would be dangerous to do something and if 90 of them said yes, but 10 said no, and you wanted to do it, you would do it anyway.

Say, something like eating sushi at a restaurant that frequently fails its health inspection, I mean, people eat there all the time - and you like the looks of the place right?

Repeating the same false information, again and again, does not make it correct...

[JMintzer]

Thank you for the informative post addressing the topic of this discussion - Climate Change.

No insult there... Ahem...

[jimjamuser]

The whole point of science is also to measure the data. Measuring CO2 in ice cores, the planet had a predictable rate in its changes (yes there are measurable natural climate cycles). However, since the time of the industrial revolution that timeline has drastically sped up. Mankind has influenced thr planets once steady natural cycles. If you would like to use common sense instead of science data, it too leads you to the same conclusion. Of course man influences the earth. Did you ever see pictures of Los Angeles in the 1930’s? You can’t see one block down the roads because smog is so thick due to fossil burning fuels. I remember seeing it coming in for a landing at the airport in the ‘70’s. Terrible. Since California passed hard restrictions on particulate’s on vehicles and other sources, they don’t have smog days anymore. The aide is clear and smog alerts are no more, Human beings polluting the earth in whatever capacity always needs to be addressed. We should always look to bettering our environment. That is common sense. However, will we get there? Doubtful. Not because it’s not possible. Our society can’t make changes when profits are more important. Fossil fuel industry doesn’t want to lose its profits (and subsidies), and keep giving huge donations to politicians which then make voting decisions based on money, not science, and definitely not common sense.
Yes. Humans are adverse to change. But, they change SLOWLY as illustrated by the example of the smog pollution of the 1930s in California. China and the US are the top polluters in the world. Therefore, I worry about their populations because it is simple - pollution increases directly with population. Therefore more CO2 production, which heats the planet.

Most people in the US never worry about increasing population because the US has retained a mentality created by the historic frontier expansion and a mindset that "bigger is better". There is a historic Evangelical concept of "conquering the environment". I don't believe that I have ever heard the concept of population debated on TV - the subject is ignored
..........Climate heating, stronger hurricanes, and western fires are screaming out for the subject of over-population to become a priority among the top industrialized nations.

[jimjamuser]

I don't believe in arguing a topic in circles. Either oil is a good fuel source or it isn't. For someone to say, well maybe/MAYBE we are supposed to use it for something else, is just circling the discussion. That's kind of like we shouldn't have used horses for transportation or for pulling wagons and plows before we had a combustion engine. And we shouldn't use a combustion engine because there might be something better to use that we just haven't thought of yet. Oil is a great commodity, an excellent form of power until someone comes up with something superior. Right now, EV autos are not superior, only different and have different means of producing the power required. Changing from fossil fuel to electric is not going to effect climate changing.

The whole term Climate Change is bogus. Man has no control over it, unless perhaps we had a nuclear war where fallout caused a nuclear winter. But, that too would eventually go back to normal. Let's be honest and just call it "Pollution Control" or something more truthful. If we control pollution, we can give longevity to the living and breathing. TO believe that we are like gods where we can control the climate or the rotation of the Earth, is being pretty arrogant. Yes, we CAN control pollution and that can be healthy and create a longer lifespan for living creatures. We are not going to raise or lower the oceans. We are not going to change the rotation of the Earth. We are not going to change the weather by using electricity versus fossil fuel. We can limit our infringement on the quality of our atmosphere.
Global Warming and Climate Change is a given. Man made Global Warming and Climate Change is just a gimmick. If one wishes to run amok shouting and protesting a "pollution" problem, go for it.
The oceans ARE rising due to the melting of glaciers. Scientists have measured the rise for years and it is increasing at a frightening rate. The military knows that Annapolis will be underwater by about 2060. These are not theories. They are measurable FACTS. And can be easily looked up by anyone. We live in an information society.

[jimjamuser]

Thank you, I agree, and personally, I know of NO ONE that disputes this comment. If there are such people, I feel sorry for them. All they have to do is walk o0ut side and see it change daily.



I think there is general agreement on this also.



Okay, Can I assume that is a personal opinion? You say you "think" this; would you share what you base that opinion on?



Yes, I think we agreed on this above.

Can we also agree that the change you are referring to here is a change in our behavior that caused the problems in the first place - i.e. that we caused pollution with a behavior of driving gas-powered cars that emitted toxic poisons and pollution and corrected that behavior by enforcing regulations that required the cars (and other sources) not to put out as much bad stuff?



And that, sir, is the question at the heart of this discussion. Sadly, by use of the common tongue term "climate change," we conflate the assertion at the top of climate change all by itself over time with the anthropogenic greenhouse effect or anthropogenic climate change. Which, hopefully, we can all agree is what we are really talking about man-made climate change.



Okay, I am also not a scientist or expert in the field of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

Can I ask how you KNOW that? Also, I would suggest that the theory does not claim that man can control the climate, only that man can affect the climate. There is, I think you will agree, a big difference between the two.



Thank you for the honest statement of fact. I believe many of the posters here agree with you. I will not debate your position; that is philosophical, moral, ethical, etc., etc., a discussion which I think is way beyond the scope of this discussion.

Let me say that in my case, I have spent my life trying to make things better for other people. That does not make me a better person than you; that is NOT virtue signaling; it is simply saying I do what makes me feel good.

I make no claim of superiority; in fact, in my experience, people who believe the way you believe are typically more successful and happier than I am.



Excellent question; I am, in fact, an atheist; I wasn't always; at one time, I actually preached for a while as a stand-in for my brother the lifelong SBC preacher.

And you bring up an interesting question that is very hard to answer.

1. There is certainly a line of reasoning that God has a plan and will take care of the planet for as long as it suits his plan. Being God, there is not really anything we can do to cause that plan to be deviated from - i.e., God will clean up our messes if it suits him.

2. We are charged, per some version of the bible, with being good stewards of the land/earth god has given us. I will omit bible references; I am sure you are familiar.

From my perspective, I guess fall into the camp that God helps those that help themselves, hence medicine, science, etc

And, while outside the scope of this discussion I will in slightly peak oil, or the theory(?) that oil is a limited resource. It is limited by the material it was created from being not of infinite origin. So, while we don't know for sure how limited it is, it seems reasonable to assume it is.

In that case, we should then consider the optimum use of this very valuable resource. Some of the other uses we make of include:

Medicine, fertilizer, pesticides, etc., Here is a reference for some. There are many other uses - other than as fuel.

Petroleum in Real Life (https://context.capp.ca/articles/2019/feature-petroleum-in-real-life-pills/)




Well, I sort of answered that above, and I don't believe in God. But, a more valid question, I think, is, what is the BEST use we can make of OIL? Since it is limited (I assume) even if we don't know how limited (years, decades, centuries, eons?) It would seem to me we would be better stewards if we made the best use of the oil, not the most convenient.



Hmm, complex. First, I am all in for natural gas for electricity generation short term (until we can develop better, Solar wind, hydro, etc., are progressing very rapidly and, with worldwide governmental support, will continue to advance even faster. Of course, it is incumbent on us not to replace one problem with yet another - so, in developing alternate sources of energy, we must try to prevent creating a new monster with even worse side effects.

But, there is always a but; COAL is among the dirtiest source of energy known to man. That is not really debatable, And it was only a result of expensive regulations that required scrubbing and other actions that we reduced some of the pollutions down to levels we can manage. And we still do not manage a major by-product of coal-fired energy product - coal ash is incredibly harmful to humans.

Oil; on the other hand, is of limited use in Electricity production - around 0.5% of our electricity is produced using petroleum liquids - I think.

We use petroleum products to propel vehicles, heat buildings, and produce electricity (0.5%). In the industrial sector, the petrochemical industry uses petroleum as a raw material (a feedstock) to make products such as plastics, polyurethane, solvents, and hundreds of other intermediate and end-user goods.

Here is a chart of many uses of oil - kindly provided by the fossil fuel industry (not that they have a vested interest - LOL)

72 Uses of Oil (https://www.iogp.org/oil-in-everyday-life/)



That is very true, but some of us think there is more to do. Along lines of cleaning up the environment.

If we are wrong, we are not suggesting anything to make it worse. But if we are right, we are talking about some very serious consequences. We don't KNOW; we are suggesting we err on the side of caution. It can't hurt.



So, you would vote for a candidate that is in favor of taking steps to curb climate change if their other policies are agreeable to you? Considering your positions stated above, I would consider that an excellent position to take.

And I thank you for posting a comment that encouraged discussion.
Good post. I am impressed with the detail and the empathy required to go to that much effort. Kudos !!!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

Lemmings do not commit suicide. However, this particular myth is based on some actual lemming behaviors. Lemmings have large population booms every three or four years. When the concentration of lemmings becomes too high in one area, a large group will set out in search of a new home. Lemmings can swim, so if they reach a water obstacle, such as a river or lake, they may try to cross it. Inevitably, a few individuals drown. But it’s hardly suicide.


So why is the myth of mass lemming suicide so widely believed? For one, it provides an irresistible metaphor for human behavior. Someone who blindly follows a crowd—maybe even toward catastrophe—is called a lemming. Over the past century, the myth has been invoked to express modern anxieties about how individuality could be submerged and destroyed by mass phenomena, such as political movements or consumer culture.

But the biggest reason the myth endures? Deliberate fraud. For the 1958 Disney nature film White Wilderness, filmmakers eager for dramatic footage staged a lemming death plunge, pushing dozens of lemmings off a cliff while cameras were rolling. The images—shocking at the time for what they seemed to show about the cruelty of nature and shocking now for what they actually show about the cruelty of humans—convinced several generations of moviegoers that these little rodents do, in fact, possess a bizarre instinct to destroy themselves.
Thank you for the knowledge!

[Lillyangel]

Bogus! Exactly! Even if the US and Europe followed the green new deal it wouldn't make any difference due to other countries not adhering to it, like China, Russia, and many others. Nothing would change.

[MartinSE]

Exactly! Even if the US and Europe followed the green new deal it wouldn't make any difference due to other countries not adhering to it, like China, Russia, and many others. Nothing would change.

China is committed to and is making progress.

But that is not the most disturbing part of your comment. Are you saying that because we can't do everything, we shouldn't do anything?

[MartyW]

I tried to post earlier. It May be that as a newbie I did it wrong. Or, my post may have been deleted. If so, no Ill will attempted. If it disappears again, I’ll figure I was in the wrong.


This was My response to a dear friend who sees things differently than I.

“But, It's not rocket science. (well maybe) but, it’s what Science claims, so what I should listen to (or so I’m told)

Fact 1: where I sit typing was once covered by over a mile of ice.

Fact 2: Where I sit, during the Silurian period, New England was in near equatorial weather patterns.

Fact 3: Scientists tell us that the "Ice Age" phenomena is on going and takes thousands of years to hit bottom (the coldest) and then thousands more to hit the top (warmest) Creating a gradient scale over time.
For my 60 + years, we've had all seasons here in the NE. They say every 100,000 years there is an ice age and a converse swing as we come out of it. By the math from when they say the last one was, we are near the half way mark.

Fact 4: Scientists tell us that the universe came into being during a "Big Bang" explosion sending partials, large and small, collecting, solidifying, cooling into planets, and other celestial bodies and debris which continue an outward expansion through space and time.

Fact 5: Scientists tell us that the unique weather patterns that we have grown use to during our lives and that we know as "New England" weather are a direct reflection of our exposure to the Sun's rays and that winter and summer are determined by our orbit around the sun and the tilt of our poles. Neither of which they tell us are constants. But not only is the solar system expanding with the universe, which would effect the "distance" and by that the timing of seasons, they also say that the poles wobble and have even flipped.

Ok, I get all that. But then on top of that they tell us that it is our fault that the weather patterns are changing. And its our doing. Even though, individually, Mt. St Helen's and Vesuvius, individually in one day, put more pollutants into the atmosphere than all of mankind's creations from his emergence from the sea. (Not that I believe the sea was our origin, so sue me) And they tell us, we have the power to fix it. Oh well, good thing I'm one of those people who believe in intelligent design. Otherwise I might loose sleep over 60 degree weather in New England in November and a greatly needed input of precipitation in desert areas (which use to be fertile wet lands) getting snow.

When they figure out which of these is true.... get back to me.

All that being said, I do believe in climate change. Not that the changes we are seeing are man made, but can be scientifically explained by some of the info above. I’ve noted (not scientifically) that for most recent years winter temps are just as severe, but come a month or more later. Seeing October weather in early December... ok, spring seems to come later. Now with the “ever expanding” theory of the Big Bang, those kind of changes then make sense to me...”

[ThehappypeopleLOL]

:undecided:
The wind always effects my shot at the green...........I always have a green agenda.

[MartinSE]

Seriously??? I would think that a string of failed predictions by the climate "experts" of the day would be highly relevant to their current predictions. Or is "anthropogenic climate change" the one and only true prediction???? You're right, it IS sad.

really, funny how we all seem to read what we want to see.


In the 60's, we were all told oil reserves will be depleted in 10 years


How is the Peak Oil theory is based on anything to do with Climate change and Climatologists?

The closest you can come is that Geophysicists are also scientists, so they are all wrong all the time (Dark Ages v2.0 theory)


In the 70's: an ice age is coming within 10 years


This is actually about climate change. But a couple of points need clarifying:

No Climatologist working in that field said an ICE AGE would start in 10 years. Didn't happen. I was not going to take my time previously to dispute every one of these, but you brought it up as if there was anything here.

At the time, the early models predicted that in 10 to 20 years, we could reach what is called a tipping point in CO2 pollution. That means that we would reach a point where it would be too late to do anything to stop the progress. NO ONE said it would be an ice age. They said unless steps were taken, we would reach a point where an Ice Age would be UNSTOPPABLE. Remember that word; it will come up again below. At no point did they say how long it would take for the Ice Age to begin or how long it would last - there were a few "guesses," but even those predicted a long time - centuries.

Two things happened.

One of the models got better, and

Second, countries took actions that slowed down the problem. By 1987 enough countries were taking action that they formed what was called the Montreal Protocol. Which did not directly address climate change but formed a protocol for how they could work together to fix environmental issues - which are at the base of climate change.

So change began, not enough changes to fix the problem, but enough to slow it down a very small amount. A small change over ten years adds up. Combine more data and better models, and you get better theories that make better predictions.

At this point, the models agree that we have passed the predicted tipping point - i.e., the causes have reached the point that an ice age is now UNSTOPPABLE with current technology. The focus at this point is to slow the onset of the Ice Age long enough that scientists can find a method to stop or reverse the damage. Or to give God enough time to fix it for us - take your pick.



in the 80's: acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years


I don't want to go deep into this one; it is close to true, but not exactly; if you actually care, here is a document on what happened and why:

Scientists didn’t announce impending environmental catastrophes every decade since the 1970s (https://sciencefeedback.co/claimreview/scientists-didnt-announce-impending-environmental-catastrophes-every-decade-since-the-1970s/)

But I understand any scientist is wrong; they must all be wrong.


in the 90's: the ozone layer will be destroyed in 10 years


Another one. I know nothing I say will matter.

This is also based on an exaggeration of what was said, it is covered in the document linked above if you want to know, as opposed to just saying scientists are always wrong - I know, Dark Age v2.0.

Really? Oh, wait, what happened - Do you remember more big government regulations forcing worthless expensive regulations on us that made companies quit using Fluorocarbons, and the ozone cloud stopped shrinking? Darn, another win for the scientists.

You know those climate scientists that are always wrong, despite the apprentice scientist at NASA with NO training or experience that denies it all...


in the 2000's: the ice caps will be gone in 10 years. (actually I've seen papers from 80 years ago with the same prediction)


This is also wrong. The prediction of ice caps (actually ice sheets) melting was made in 1968. It was debated for a long time among scientists, few accepted the idea, back then:

It took a while for the idea to take hold. Advanced numerical ice-sheet models developed in the late 1980s tended to downplay the risk of rapid ice loss from western Antarctica, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested in its 1995 report that Antarctica as a whole was stable. But evidence to the contrary mounted: the massive Larsen A and B ice shelves collapsed in 1995 and 2002, respectively, followed by a major rift in Larsen C in 2017. In 2014, a team of scientists declared that the loss of ice in the Amundsen Sea Embayment had accelerated and appeared “unstoppable”.

But still no consensus. Until around 2014. And even then, no date was assigned, only that it had progressed until it was not expected to be stoppable.

Here is the entire article in Nature magazine:

The scientist who predicted ice-sheet collapse — 50 years ago (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01390-x)

So, thank you for proving my point. Most of that post was just plain wrong. Most were based on some truth, but they all said "WILL" and left off the "UNLESS:. See, scientists did just yell, end of the world; they yelled, "End of the World unless we prevent a nuclear holocaust. See the word "UNLESS." It kind of puts a different spin on what the scientists said/said. And gee, let's look back again briefly at what happened in every case where actions were taken, and the bad things were averted.

I was passing on this post because these are "memories" and provided NO actual documentation. Having been diagnosed with CRS (Can't Remember **** - the medical description is I am having difficulty forming long-term memories, more so than is normal for our age), I completely relate to misremembering things.

But, you wanted to throw it up as a definitive argument that scientists around the world are making the entire thing up so they can get free money, or they are just stupid, or politicians are forcing them to lie - or whatever the mole is that it popping its head up this week.,

I would LOVE to actually debate some actual data with anyone that actually believes this is all nonsense. But without exception, it hasn't happened. Lots of opinions, but not a post that I can remember with actual non-disputable facts or even a reasonable theory. And when someone does post something close to that, even if it is an opinion and not fact, and I do respond politely with comments to their post, it is just ignored, and more "The shots destroy your immune system" type posts follow.

[MartinSE]

:undecided:

Love it. Probably the best post in this entire thread!

[golfing eagles]

Love it. Probably the best post in this entire thread!

Just one question----where do you get your talking points from???:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I am a skeptic.

... burning of fossil fuels may have an impact, the severity is not proven, and the proposed remedies are not certain...

The answer is right in front of you, if you choose to look. Your own words.

Burning of fossil fuels may have an impact.

The proposed remedy is to burn less. Seems a no-brainer.

Sort of like - if you smack your head against the wall and complain that you get a headache each time you do it, then - maybe - stop smacking your head against the wall. Or, gently press your head to the wall, if you really want to feel that wall-skull connection but don't want the headache.

[fdpaq0580]

Lemmings do not commit suicide. However, this particular myth is based on some actual lemming behaviors. Lemmings have large population booms every three or four years. When the concentration of lemmings becomes too high in one area, a large group will set out in search of a new home. Lemmings can swim, so if they reach a water obstacle, such as a river or lake, they may try to cross it. Inevitably, a few individuals drown. But it’s hardly suicide

Who said lemmings commit suicide? I didn't. I used the lemmings propensity to breed like, well, like lemmings, over populate and destroy their habitat, then rush off to find a new home---to destroy. I used the island as the setting as metaphor for earth. Many live on islands and what was portrayed was pretty accurate. (Yes, I did borrow from Disney. Thanks Walt.) And, like in the Disney film, the lemming were not commiting suicide, they were trying to find a new home. Some, probably most, possibly all may drown in the attempt. The ocean is a big and dangerous place for a little land animal. But they can run or swim away. If we don't take care of our "island habitat in space", we can't just run or swim to the next earth-like planet.

[MartinSE]

Ok, I get all that. But then on top of that they tell us that it is our fault that the weather patterns are changing. And its our doing. Even though, individually, Mt. St Helen's and Vesuvius, individually in one day, put more pollutants into the atmosphere than all of mankind's creations from his emergence from the sea. (Not that I believe the sea was our origin, so sue me) And they tell us, we have the power to fix it. Oh well, good thing I'm one of those people who believe in intelligent design. Otherwise I might loose sleep over 60 degree weather in New England in November and a greatly needed input of precipitation in desert areas (which use to be fertile wet lands) getting snow.
[\QUOTE]

To this point, you were doing pretty well. Nothing negative to say about that prior to this, in my opinion.

First, We are not discussing Climate Change. We are discussing the anthropogenic greenhouse effect or anthropogenic climate change. This does not mean we are controlling the climate it means we are affecting it.

Yes, that is very true. The climate is ALWAYS and has always changed. So, what is the big deal now? The problem is some changes are occurring faster than expected based on scientific models developed decades ago.

Not long after they were developed, scientists started noticing small deviations that the model didn't predict. Investigations followed, and new models were developed, and they indicated that the deviations resulted from what people were doing.

That all happened a long time ago. It was an "exciting" breakthrough for scientists, so they told everyone what they found A common occurrence; scientists tend not to be very good communicators). Sadly the models were not very robust and had flaws - many flaws. So the announcement resulted in a lot of misinterpretations. The scientist went back to work and came up with ever-improving models. Those improving models resulted in better predictions that more accurately predicted changes.

Eventually, they announced that if we didn't change our evil ways (sorry couldn't resist), we would reach a point where the models predicted that the changes would not be able to be stopped based on existing science and technology. I think the time period was like 10 to 20 years, but the media picked this up and ran with 10 years (I could be wrong here). This would then result - unless something happened - in an Ice Age being triggered to occur much sooner than it should have - 100's of years instead of thousands. And that the effect of that change would start to be seen in decades.

This all got picked up by politicians as a really good way they could scare the people into voting for them - either to stop the change or to stop the stopping of the change. And the mischaracterizations, distortions, exaggerations, and outright lies began. You may have noticed I left out the Oil Industry, which launched a massive disinformation campaign involving things like faked studies and paid-off politicians. etc. (Look up Exxon and faking and misreporting studies they did)

So, the bottom line, we missed the deadline for stopping the tripping point and can no longer, given the current state of science and technology, stop the Ice Age from starting early. The best we can do at this point is to slow it down - a little, And maybe, we can put off the seriously bad stuff long enough that science can come up with a way to reverse what we have done.

Note, at NO POINT did scientists ever say we caused the coming Ice Age, just that our actions affected it by speeding up its development.

[QUOTE]
When they figure out which of these is true.... get back to me.


I hate to break the bad news to you, but for the most part, science doesn't work that way. They say what is likely and how likely - the how likely is much hard than the what.

The anthropogenic greenhouse effect is a theory That is a cute way to say, this is something that predicts something that MIGHT happen. But being a theory, it might be wrong. VERY seldom will you find a scientist that will claim something is true (FACT). Sometimes, they do, but more often they refer to theories - ideas that make useful predictions; For example, it is mostly accepted that if you hold a hammer out at arm's length and let go, it will fall. The scientific reason that it falls is a theory. We do not know the truth. We have a theory, the theory is called gravitational attraction - gravity. The theory is pretty good, it says it will fall, and in every test case so far, it has... Theory proven. But, we don't know why. So, we can't really say that someday it might not fall,

So, to your comment, when they know what's true - probably isn't going to happen at least not in our lifetimes. Does that mean the next time you take a flight you should try stepping out of a plane without a parachute? Probably a bad idea, even if it is just a theory.


All that being said, I do believe in climate change. Not that the changes we are seeing are man made, but can be scientifically explained by some of the info above. I’ve noted (not scientifically) that for most recent years winter temps are just as severe, but come a month or more later. Seeing October weather in early December... ok, spring seems to come later.
{/QOUTE]

Actually, changes do occur, and as far as we know always have, it appears to be true. Scientisst do have theories on why weather changes and models that predict those changes, but those also are theories, different theories (but related to) those theories that predict change made because of the Anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

[QUOTE]
Now with the “ever expanding” theory of the Big Bang, those kind of changes then make sense to me...”

Big Bang is a theory as you said, but it is coming under more and more scrutiny. And, there is always the question of why and what was before it. So, actually while the Big Bang is fairly good at predicting MOST cosmic events, there are many it fails to predict - fails miserably.

Lucky for us, Big Bang is still kind of esoteric. It has little impact on our daily lives and probably won't for a long time. Sadly the Anthropogenic greenhouse effect theory is accurately making predictions that will and do affect OUR lives and will have an even greater effect on our children and their children. Science is in a race, a race I believe it will win, but nonetheless a race, to save life as we know it. "Climate change" will not destroy the world, and it has never been claimed to do so. It will not kill off all life on earth and has never claimed it would despite the claims of some. And it will not kill off all human life. (We are much more likely to do that to ourselves, but that is another thread)

What will happen if the theory's predictions are correct is that like for humans (all life actually) will be impacted and will not be the same as we know it. How much change is a topic for another thread, but serious change will result in a lot of death. How much is a lot? It depends on how much longer we wait to take definitive actions.

Worst case, the predictions are wrong, and we spend a lot of money making the world a cleaner, healthier place for our descendants to live. (Well, not the worst, we could be right and do nothing, but I was trying to find a positive note to end on).

[fcgiii]

The Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was warmer than we are now, and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now. So we are within the geologically recent range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

[MartinSE]

Just one question----where do you get your talking points from???:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

If I had to decide, I would say I overeat edible THC...

EDITED: Oh darn, I replied to the wrong post - LOL It was supposed to be to DWilson58 (something like that?)"


The wind always effects my shot at the green...........I always have a green agenda.

[fcgiii]

The Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was warmer than we are now, and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now. So we are within the geologically recent range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

[MartinSE]

The Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was warmer than we are now, and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now. So we are within the geologically recent range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

What an excellent well thought out and presented argument that thousands of scientists somehow overlooked after decades of research; you should contact them and let them know as soon as possible,


Ahem, sarcasm...

If only we were debating is the climate ever changes, which we aren't.

[fcgiii]

A total of 37 tropical cyclones have been estimated to have peaked as Category 5 since records began in 1924. There were 6 hurricanes in the 1930s and 6 since 2006, suggesting that they are not becoming more frequent over time.

The damage a hurricane produces depends on its strength and where it makes landfall. A Cat 5 hurricane that does not hit land does little damage. Hurricane Lorenzo in 2019 did little damage as it stayed out in the Atantic. Esther in 1961 stayed out in the Atlantic and when it finally made landfall in Canada t was only a tripical storm.

There is currently no consensus on how climate change will affect the overall frequency of tropical cyclones. A majority of climate models show a decreased frequency in future projections

[MartinSE]

Yes. Humans are adverse to change. But, they change SLOWLY as illustrated by the example of the smog pollution of the 1930s in California. China and the US are the top polluters in the world. Therefore, I worry about their populations because it is simple - pollution increases directly with population. Therefore more CO2 production, which heats the planet.

Good point, I would point out that the US has 1/5 the population of China while the US produces over half as much pollution.

So, the population is contributing but not exclusive. I think and can't prove that a certain level of industrial revolution results in excessive pollution - we went through the industrial process in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

China is playing catchup. And is producing less pollution than we are per person because it has less industry per capita and a lower standard of living on average. China has committed to reducing pollution and is making progress; I have no idea if they are serious and will continue,


Most people in the US never worry about increasing population because the US has retained a mentality created by the historic frontier expansion and a mindset that "bigger is better". There is a historic Evangelical concept of "conquering the environment". I don't believe that I have ever heard the concept of population debated on TV - the subject is ignored.

Uh, yup, agree.

And just to nitpick, China's population density is 4 times that of us, so we could, theoretically, increase our population to 1.4 billion and be at the same density as China, But we have a MUCH higher standard of living which means each person has a larger carbon footprint that each person in China - on average..., reaching the same population density would be expected to produce about as much pollution as China with a lower total population.

[mtdjed]

This thread shows that Cliff Clavin from Cheers really existed, is alive and resides in The Villages. So much knowledge in one place!

"Well, you see, Norm, it’s like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it’s the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine.

And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers."

That's a Fact and not Theory. Or is it the other way around?

[MartinSE]

This thread shows that Cliff Clavin from Cheers really existed, is alive and resides in The Villages. So much knowledge in one place!

"Well, you see, Norm, it’s like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it’s the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine.

And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers."

That's a Fact and not Theory. Or is it the other way around?

Sigh. That is very a very ON TOPIC post and I guess is why so many of these climate change threads get closed.

It is as if all most people want to do is post-drive-by-one-liner posts about a very complex topic. And any time anyone attempts to post something about the topic, they get ridiculed.

It may well be time for another vacation. Too many here appear only to be interested in scoring burn points with "the guys. There is obviously no interest in actually discussing anything. People could post a thread on what makes a cat cute, and it would get closed in a few days.

I am unsure if I should do another suicide post orf just wait a few days and let the moderators do it for me.

I guess I could start a poll and see what everyone wants - LOL!

[BiPartisan]

Thank God we have climate change. At one point in time Wisconsin was covered in glaciers. The ice age destroyed the dinosaurs. Good thing it warmed up. Man really thinks he has a lot more influence on the earth's temperature than he does. A study recently came out from NOAA that showed we are in a period of fewer severe hurricanes. Another study came out indicating the earth's orbit and tilt on our axes has more to do with our temperature. I guess it's not settled science yet.

And lake Bonneville covered the present state of Utah, and parts of ID, NV, and CO. The Lake convered 20,000 Sq miles and was 900 ft deep. Today we wonder why the Colorado River and Lake Mead are drying up. Did man have an affect on that? No man made influence affected Lake Bonneville, the extinction of the dinosaurs or the loss of the glaciers inthe the same States. So are we in Climate Cycles or Man Made Climate Change. Remember the most devastating hurricane was The Great Hurricane of 1780, 20,000 perished.

[tvbound]

From a very broad view, there are really two primary trains of thoughts on anthropogenic (human caused/contributed) climate change/warming.

1. Those who refuse to believe/try to manipulate/purposely obfuscate the science embraced by 90%+ of the world's legitimate scientists who are most educated on the subject, so that they are not inconvenienced in their current quality of life and bristle - at making any current sacrifice(s) for the future.

2. Those who actually care about the sustainability of the planet for their children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren/Etc. and are willing to take action and make sacrifices NOW, to 'TRY' and reverse/slow down the adverse effects to our planet already occurring.


Since I can't even imagine being that selfish...count me being in the latter group.

[midiwiz]

So, you think that by making rude insults you will encourage people to accept your view?

Do you have a degree in climatology? Where did you study and have you done any post-graduate work in the field? On that's right you are on the "common sense" side of the argument.


Please explain how electricity works?'
Please explain how a nuclear reactor works.
Please explain how a microwave oven works.

Please only use common sense - since you don't please people that have devoted their lives to studying the science behind why things work

And I am sure all the scientists have very low IQs and qualify as STUPID per your remarks

there is nothing rude or insulting in that. so try reading it with a non bias mind. Also if you want those explanations, that will have to be offline I'm not clogging up this board for your benefit.

[golfing eagles]

From a very broad view, there are really two primary trains of thoughts on anthropogenic (human caused/contributed) climate change/warming.

1. Those who refuse to believe/try to manipulate/purposely obfuscate the science embraced by 90%+ of the world's legitimate scientists who are most educated on the subject, so that they are not inconvenienced in their current quality of life and bristle - at making any current sacrifice(s) for the future.

2. Those who actually care about the sustainability of the planet for their children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren/Etc. and are willing to take action and make sacrifices NOW, to 'TRY' and reverse/slow down the adverse effects to our planet already occurring.


Since I can't even imagine being that selfish...count me being in the latter group.

And there it is! Finally, the climate change advocates have come to call those of us with a knowledge of paleoclimatology and some common sense "selfish". This must be the same crew that called people who didn't wear a mask when driving their car alone "selfish"

Manipulate/purposely obfuscate???? That 90% number has been debunked multiple times. And isn't it the climatologists who jump on the bandwagon to obtain grant money the ones who are "selfish"?

"Try to slow down the adverse effects"?---to the tune of bankrupting the world???? That would lead to consequences far worse than driving your SUV.

And anyone who thinks the peak of this cyclical warming is any closer than 15-25,000 years away----like the 12 years that was previously stated or even within the lifetimes of our grandchildren, well...........I can't write it.

[Byte1]

The oceans ARE rising due to the melting of glaciers. Scientists have measured the rise for years and it is increasing at a frightening rate. The military knows that Annapolis will be underwater by about 2060. These are not theories. They are measurable FACTS. And can be easily looked up by anyone. We live in an information society.

Hmmm, did I say that the oceans are NOT rising, or did someone misinterpret what I said regarding it being impossible for man to change the action of the ocean rising?

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Global warming has started long ago. The earth has been warming up since the end of the ice age !! And that is a true fact.. :boom:

But not even close to how quickly the increasing temps have occurred since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. This is the key factor that your point fails to address. This has also been referenced by other posters, some of whom have made very compelling arguments and you should read them.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

NASA ASSOCIATE climate scientist Kate Marvel

BA from UC Berkeley, Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge
Double majored in physics and astronomy, Ph.D. in theoretical physics

Note she does not have a degree in anything associated with Climatology. Her resume provides NO credentials that she has worked in the field or on the models.

Instead:

"I love my job because I get to study the best place in the universe. I use satellite observations of the climate system, reconstructions of past climate change, and the output of computer models of the climate to understand what is climate change actually like, and is it happening now?

It’s great because I get to work with so much data!"

What has been your biggest challenge, professional or personal, and how did you overcome it?

I would say switching into a totally new field. I didn’t have a background in Earth science at all, but I had the raw tools of physics and math

So, she is an associate (apprentice in other fields) with no background or formal training in the field. NO EXPERIENCE AT ALL. Her own words.

Yes, let's take her word over the 80% to 90% of the scientists that have extensive training and have spent their lives working in the field

Ahem...

This reminds me of the Vets and Podiatrists and Nurses giving recommendations and predictions on virology and the pandemic, I guess some people look for anything to support their preconceived notions and jump for joy when they find an exception that agrees.

I'm sure that most of the scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change would agree with that. The point, however, is that the descent of the slope is rapidly increasing.

[golfing eagles]

But not even close to how quickly the increasing temps have occurred since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. This is the key factor that your point fails to address. This has also been referenced by other posters, some of whom have made very compelling arguments and you should read them.

Here's the problem: Yes, temperatures have been rising since we have been keeping records, about 150 years. They go up and down , year to year, decade to decade, but overall have risen. What we don't know, however, is how many times in the last 4 million years (the time frame of our current ice age) that temperatures have risen just as quick, or even much quicker. Without a frame of reference, it is IMPOSSIBLE to draw conclusions one way or the other. It's like standing on the shore, looking at nothing but ocean on the horizon, but drawing conclusions as to how far away to the other side.

[banjobob]

OK we all agree the climate is changing , the major problem IF manmade, is not the United States . Look to China ,Russia,India and all other countries willfully polluting the globe and doing next nothing to control it. This country should stop trying to save the world.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

really, funny how we all seem to read what we want to see.



How is the Peak Oil theory is based on anything to do with Climate change and Climatologists?

The closest you can come is that Geophysicists are also scientists, so they are all wrong all the time (Dark Ages v2.0 theory)



This is actually about climate change. But a couple of points need clarifying:

No Climatologist working in that field said an ICE AGE would start in 10 years. Didn't happen. I was not going to take my time previously to dispute every one of these, but you brought it up as if there was anything here.

At the time, the early models predicted that in 10 to 20 years, we could reach what is called a tipping point in CO2 pollution. That means that we would reach a point where it would be too late to do anything to stop the progress. NO ONE said it would be an ice age. They said unless steps were taken, we would reach a point where an Ice Age would be UNSTOPPABLE. Remember that word; it will come up again below. At no point did they say how long it would take for the Ice Age to begin or how long it would last - there were a few "guesses," but even those predicted a long time - centuries.

Two things happened.

One of the models got better, and

Second, countries took actions that slowed down the problem. By 1987 enough countries were taking action that they formed what was called the Montreal Protocol. Which did not directly address climate change but formed a protocol for how they could work together to fix environmental issues - which are at the base of climate change.

So change began, not enough changes to fix the problem, but enough to slow it down a very small amount. A small change over ten years adds up. Combine more data and better models, and you get better theories that make better predictions.

At this point, the models agree that we have passed the predicted tipping point - i.e., the causes have reached the point that an ice age is now UNSTOPPABLE with current technology. The focus at this point is to slow the onset of the Ice Age long enough that scientists can find a method to stop or reverse the damage. Or to give God enough time to fix it for us - take your pick.




I don't want to go deep into this one; it is close to true, but not exactly; if you actually care, here is a document on what happened and why:

Scientists didn’t announce impending environmental catastrophes every decade since the 1970s (https://sciencefeedback.co/claimreview/scientists-didnt-announce-impending-environmental-catastrophes-every-decade-since-the-1970s/)

But I understand any scientist is wrong; they must all be wrong.



Another one. I know nothing I say will matter.

This is also based on an exaggeration of what was said, it is covered in the document linked above if you want to know, as opposed to just saying scientists are always wrong - I know, Dark Age v2.0.

Really? Oh, wait, what happened - Do you remember more big government regulations forcing worthless expensive regulations on us that made companies quit using Fluorocarbons, and the ozone cloud stopped shrinking? Darn, another win for the scientists.

You know those climate scientists that are always wrong, despite the apprentice scientist at NASA with NO training or experience that denies it all...



This is also wrong. The prediction of ice caps (actually ice sheets) melting was made in 1968. It was debated for a long time among scientists, few accepted the idea, back then:

It took a while for the idea to take hold. Advanced numerical ice-sheet models developed in the late 1980s tended to downplay the risk of rapid ice loss from western Antarctica, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested in its 1995 report that Antarctica as a whole was stable. But evidence to the contrary mounted: the massive Larsen A and B ice shelves collapsed in 1995 and 2002, respectively, followed by a major rift in Larsen C in 2017. In 2014, a team of scientists declared that the loss of ice in the Amundsen Sea Embayment had accelerated and appeared “unstoppable”.

But still no consensus. Until around 2014. And even then, no date was assigned, only that it had progressed until it was not expected to be stoppable.

Here is the entire article in Nature magazine:

The scientist who predicted ice-sheet collapse — 50 years ago (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01390-x)

So, thank you for proving my point. Most of that post was just plain wrong. Most were based on some truth, but they all said "WILL" and left off the "UNLESS:. See, scientists did just yell, end of the world; they yelled, "End of the World unless we prevent a nuclear holocaust. See the word "UNLESS." It kind of puts a different spin on what the scientists said/said. And gee, let's look back again briefly at what happened in every case where actions were taken, and the bad things were averted.

I was passing on this post because these are "memories" and provided NO actual documentation. Having been diagnosed with CRS (Can't Remember **** - the medical description is I am having difficulty forming long-term memories, more so than is normal for our age), I completely relate to misremembering things.

But, you wanted to throw it up as a definitive argument that scientists around the world are making the entire thing up so they can get free money, or they are just stupid, or politicians are forcing them to lie - or whatever the mole is that it popping its head up this week.,

I would LOVE to actually debate some actual data with anyone that actually believes this is all nonsense. But without exception, it hasn't happened. Lots of opinions, but not a post that I can remember with actual non-disputable facts or even a reasonable theory. And when someone does post something close to that, even if it is an opinion and not fact, and I do respond politely with comments to their post, it is just ignored, and more "The shots destroy your immune system" type posts follow.

There is no debate about the ice caps melting. You realize that the Arctic is now navigable. This has never been the case in recorded history. I saw an article in Forbes by a climate denier who was funded by a think tank at Stanford who correctly claimed the ice sheet in Antarctica had grown. However, this was quickly debunked because this was a thin layer of ice caused by the increased moisture in the atmosphere caused by warming temperatures in the ocean. The real problem is the melting of the icebergs and permafrost which have been growing at an increasing rate and contributing to rising sea levels which are the most serious in the southern hemisphere, especially the South Pacific.

[Byte1]

]But not even close to how quickly the increasing temps have occurred since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.[/B] This is the key factor that your point fails to address. This has also been referenced by other posters, some of whom have made very compelling arguments and you should read them.

Scientists or stats suggest that temps increased since the "advent of the Industrial Revolution?" Can they prove that the industrial revolution caused the increasing in temps or can they just prove that the temps happen to rise and that there was an industrial revolution? I light a candle at 6am in the morning. At 7am the same morning the sun comes up and the temp rises. Did the candle make the temp warmer or did the natural rotation toward the sun make the temp rise?
Like I have said before, scientists make mistakes and then they flip and cover up their mistakes with scientific explanations. Not all scientists, but it does happen. Once an expert comes up with a theory, then many others jump on the band wagon. Just because many "experts" concur with one, does not make him/her right. Motivations make a difference also, as someone else said in an earlier post.
I don't support the Green New Deal. I have no intention of supporting the bankruptcy of our country, just to bankroll a fantasy. The only way man is going to control climate change is to build a huge dome over their environment where they can control the climate inside. Our world will change whether mankind is here or not. I agree that man can contribute to pollution and that can be remedied to a certain extent by lowering pollutants. I do not agree with some nuts idea of lowering the population of cattle to bring down the methane gas from flatulence.
Scientists have proven to us that plants thrive in CO2 and produce oxygen. Thank goodness we can't eliminate CO2.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

A total of 37 tropical cyclones have been estimated to have peaked as Category 5 since records began in 1924. There were 6 hurricanes in the 1930s and 6 since 2006, suggesting that they are not becoming more frequent over time.

The damage a hurricane produces depends on its strength and where it makes landfall. A Cat 5 hurricane that does not hit land does little damage. Hurricane Lorenzo in 2019 did little damage as it stayed out in the Atantic. Esther in 1961 stayed out in the Atlantic and when it finally made landfall in Canada t was only a tripical storm.

There is currently no consensus on how climate change will affect the overall frequency of tropical cyclones. A majority of climate models show a decreased frequency in future projections

Everything I have read agrees with your point on frequency. However, the problem is the increased intensity of the storms caused by the increased moisture due to the higher levels of CO2 that cause the warming of the ocean -- this is what we saw with Hurricane Ian.

Another point that I don't believe anyone addressed directly was the air quality problem caused by fossil fuels. This was a huge problem in China and which they are now working to fix. Also, in places like Salt Lake City, which has an inversion because of its topography, it has been exacerbated by the population explosion there and the overcrowded highways, causing it on one day in 2021 to have the worst air quality in the world. This is directly related to the exhaust from motor vehicles -- this was told to me by an EPA scientist.

So, as others have alluded to, overpopulation is a contributing factor to this issue.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

And there it is! Finally, the climate change advocates have come to call those of us with a knowledge of paleoclimatology and some common sense "selfish". This must be the same crew that called people who didn't wear a mask when driving their car alone "selfish"

Manipulate/purposely obfuscate???? That 90% number has been debunked multiple times. And isn't it the climatologists who jump on the bandwagon to obtain grant money the ones who are "selfish"?

"Try to slow down the adverse effects"?---to the tune of bankrupting the world???? That would lead to consequences far worse than driving your SUV.

And anyone who thinks the peak of this cyclical warming is any closer than 15-25,000 years away----like the 12 years that was previously stated or even within the lifetimes of our grandchildren, well...........I can't write it.

Have you read through the thread? It certainly doesn't appear that you have based on this post. There are some excellent posts in it, and I'm not including any of mine in this assessment.

[Stu from NYC]

We still do not know what we do not know and we sure do not know that much about the previous 10,000 years.

[Retwarrior]

HAARP Weather Manipulation Sites.
Researching is amazing.

[fdpaq0580]

We still do not know what we do not know and we sure do not know that much about the previous 10,000 years.

"Don't know what we don't " could be said about any topic and be true. But, between paleontologists, archeologists, climatologists, and other researchers, we actually know quite a bit.

[ThirdOfFive]

Have you read through the thread? It certainly doesn't appear that you have based on this post. There are some excellent posts in it, and I'm not including any of mine in this assessment.
There are indeed. As well as some--well--antagonistic posts. But my compliments to the Thought Police. They've allowed this discussion to take place even though there appeared to be some justifiable reasons not to do so.

But let's take another tack here--not to try to predict the dangers (or not) that lie ahead, but to look back on how far we've come. In 1960 I was 12 years old, just entering Junior High. The total population of the Earth in 1960 was 3,034,949,748 persons. I remember the discussions in school at the time: about how horribly overcrowded the Earth had become; that in a very few years, maybe 30 at most, the earth would not be able to sustain such a population and the calamitous days ahead were going see mass starvation on a scale never before seen, and wars fought for the sole purpose of obtaining the food supplies of other nations. That was 1960, and the rate of population growth was over 2% per year. Today, the Earth supports a population of just a shade under EIGHT billion people, getting close to three times as many as there were in 1960 (with the rate of growth slowing to less than 1% per year), and I'd venture to guess that, per capita, there are far fewer people starving in the world today than in 1960. Huge advances in farming knowledge and technology, better land management, more efficient shipping and storage, etc. have all contributed. We learned and adapted.

One post mentioned the pollution in Los Angeles during the mid-20th century. I remember those days. Not just Los Angeles but many other cities had the same problem. The technology of the day was dirty--no doubt about it. But the Clean Air Act of 1963 set in motion a series of reforms and technological improvements particularly in manufacturing (emission scrubbers, better disposal of pollutants, catalytic converters, etc.) that has made a world of difference from then to now. Look at pictures of major American cities of the early 1960s compared to pictures of today and you will see this. We learned and adapted.

Finally, energy. Back in 1980 the world was thought to have 642.160000253469 billion barrels of recoverable oil. In 2015, that number had exploded to 1615.40000067651 billion barrels--well over twice as much as was known in 1980. (index mundi website). And in a turn of events that can only be described as ironic--the known oil reserves of the Arctic grow by leaps and bounds year by year, and with the north polar ice cap receding, that oil becomes more and more recoverable. Not only that, but our methods of recovery, transportation and refining become cleaner and more efficient year by year. We learned and adapted.

Those of us blessed with long lives know far better than anyone else A) just how the naysayers dominate the news; and B) just how often those naysayers are proven wrong. Books like "Earth In The Balance", once the Bible of the doom-and-gloomers, are today far more noteworthy of the horrendous Inaccuracy of their predictions than for anything else. Bad news sells, after all. But looking to the past gives us, in my opinion, a far more accurate barometer of how the future will be going than any doom-and-gloom predictions can. We get it right. Not nearly as fast as many think we should, but we do.

[Byte1]

Who was it that once said that the great thing about being a Weatherman is that you don't get fired for being wrong?

[OhioBuckeye]

Seriously do you think Hurricane’s are caused by Gobal Warming, seriously it’s called govt. money gouging. No way money will fix Mother Nature. This is something that happens every 100 yrs. Don’t believe it, we had another person make billions off of us.

[MartinSE]

We still do not know what we do not know and we sure do not know that much about the previous 10,000 years.

We KNOW the earth is about 4.5 billion years; how is that possible there was no one other to start a timer running?

[MartinSE]

Seriously do you think Hurricane’s are caused by Gobal Warming, seriously it’s called govt. money gouging. No way money will fix Mother Nature. This is something that happens every 100 yrs. Don’t believe it, we had another person make billions off of us.

Seriously, have you seen any post, read any scientific journal, or found anything where any credible account claims a hurricane was caused by Man-made climate change? If so, I would love a reference so I can go write another book on them.

I know of no one that claims singleton events, hurricanes, droughts, flooding, etc, are caused by global warming. That is a news media talking point to raise anger.

What climate change is said to do is to affect the climate. At this point, the change is a very little nudge - so in the case of Ian, Ian would have happened anyway, but because of climate change maybe the storm surge in SW Florida was 18 feet instead of 15 feet or 17 feet or whatever it would have been without the impact of climate change.

In Phoenix, AZ, there are long periods of temperatures in excess of 100f every day. I don't remember the exact number of days, but say all things being normal, they would have had a 90-day period this year, but instead, because of climate change, they have a 92-day period.

People look a that and say, well, what's the big deal, in 1843 they had a 105 days period. See, climate change is fake.

Well, no, that is not how averages work. Climate scientists never claim to predict any singleton event. They claim that, on average, things are changing - a small amount each year but changing. That is why it takes supercomputers to run the models which analyze enough data from all over the world to be able to see very small deviations over time. Picking out exceptions as samples of why they are wrong, well, seems simple and reasonable, but doesn't work.

Why is that small change so important?

Well, think of it as compound interest. When you are 8 and deposit that first tuppence, the interest is silly little, But continue ever week with another tuppence, and compound interest starts to be significant. By the time you are 65, you can retire. (well, today, a tuppence may not be enough to retire, but you get the idea. small changes add up over time, especially when they are compounding).

[DAVES]

I think this topic is very important and should not be categorized as political. The problem is that there are those who have made it political. It affects us all, as we can see with the latest hurricane, which caused so much damage and flooding because according to the experts contained more water and flooding effects because of global warming.

MY VIEW-I find it interesting that GLOBAL WARMING has morphed into CLIMATE CHANGE. Climate has and always will change over time. Roughly 45 years ago the issue was global cooling. We did not have Al Gore to line his pockets, he has a HUGE carbon footprint while telling the rest of us what we should give up.

I could SCREAM that my carbon foot print is far less than it used to be. It would be totally TRUE. Before I pat myself on the back I SHOULD state I am retired and I no longer PRODUCE anything.

As a kid I remember a cross section of an ancient redwood that was on display at the NY Museum of Natural History. They had tags showing the ring where major world events occurred. They pointed out different climate changes over history. There were times where the tree grew more and times it grew less due to CHANGING CLIMATE. I will bet that REALITY has been taken down.

Hurricanes-with all the PANIC, we have had FEWER hurricanes than in the past.

It is always others should. California perhaps the epicenter of this PANIC. They have incomprehensible forest fires. It is due IN PART to poor forest management. These fires release TONS of CO2. They are deliberately making gasoline powered cars unaffordable to drive.

[MartinSE]

MY VIEW-I find it interesting that GLOBAL WARMING has morphed into CLIMATE CHANGE. Climate has and always will change over time. Roughly 45 years ago the issue was global cooling.


Climate Change, Cooling, etc are all "common tongue" descriptions typically used by the media and then adopted by the masses. The term Climate Change was adopted because cooling carried the implication that the climate would just cool, and climate warming carried the implication that the climate would only warm.

News and politicians love simple catchy dog whistles.

The actual name is anthropogenic (man-made) climate change, and it predicts the climate will become more variable - not just warmer or cooler.

I understand what you are saying, I don't agree obviously. But, we each have to come to our own opinions. There are plenty of long-winded explanations here of why I have my opinion.

You have stated yours, I respect that even if it sounds like I don't in most of my posts.

[fdpaq0580]

We KNOW the earth is about 4.5 billion years; how is that possible there was no one other to start a timer running?

(Psst. Geology, physics, astronoy, etc. Timex is not the only way to record the passage of time.)

[MidWestIA]

I just care about extreme weather in The Villages, Iowa or Texas. Talking about future weather is pointless unless you plan to do some construction or move

[fdpaq0580]

[QUOTE=in2i. Next year the left will claim global freezing.[/QUOTE]

I sincerely doubt that.

[jimjamuser]

The Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was warmer than we are now, and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now. So we are within the geologically recent range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.
What IS measurable is that the past 8 years globally are the warmest in RECORDED weather records. Also MEASURABLE is the rapid increase in the last few years of SEA LEVEL RISE. Climate scientists know that the cause of the sea level rise is the rapid falling away of the world's glaciers into the sea due to the earth's recent higher temperatures.

Another issue that worries scientists is the fairly recent rapid extinction of many animal species. Personally, I can't just pretend that this isn't happening - that there is a large island of plastic bottles and other plastic items floating around and polluting the Gulf of Mexico - that the coral of coastal Miami (that I once snorkeled around) is dying - that the Florida saltwater fishing industry is dying - that hurricanes are getting stronger. When I was a child I remember honey bees were everywhere. Today with excessive pesticide spraying, I see maybe 5 honey bees in a years time. And I believe that these issues are all interconnected.

Take population increase for example. When I relocated to Florida in 1972, its population was approximately 9 million people. Today it is 30 million. I can't personally say that my quality of life has tripled because of that population increase. But, it seems logical that a population change that great has had negative effects on human quality of life and on the coral reefs surrounding Florida - and on the ecosystems in the Florida interior.

Growing population leads to greater CO2 production from burning fossil fuels - which leads to climate change. Not just burning fossil fuel in cars, trucks, golf carts, and lawn maintenance equipment. But, think of the increased airline travel miles associated with Florida's 30 million people.........that is a lot of jet fuel being burned with the combustion products probably ending up in the upper atmosphere. Modern life with great science and technology has created many everyday benefits. But, it also allows humans to have the capacity to overwhelm the environment.......the once great Mother Earth.

[golfing eagles]

What IS measurable is that the past 8 years globally are the warmest in RECORDED history. Also MEASURABLE is the rapid increase in the last few years of SEA LEVEL RISE. Climate scientists know that the cause of the sea level rise is the rapid falling away of the world's glaciers into the sea due to the earth's recent higher temperatures.

Care to modify that statement????? RECORDED history goes back about 6,000 years. Weather records go back about 150 years. So the truth is, NOBODY knows how the past 8 years compare to recorded history, much less the last 4 million years of our current ice age. You can walk back that first line to say in recorded weather history, but then you are looking at a miniscule slice of recorded history.

[jimjamuser]

Scientists or stats suggest that temps increased since the "advent of the Industrial Revolution?" Can they prove that the industrial revolution caused the increasing in temps or can they just prove that the temps happen to rise and that there was an industrial revolution? I light a candle at 6am in the morning. At 7am the same morning the sun comes up and the temp rises. Did the candle make the temp warmer or did the natural rotation toward the sun make the temp rise?
Like I have said before, scientists make mistakes and then they flip and cover up their mistakes with scientific explanations. Not all scientists, but it does happen. Once an expert comes up with a theory, then many others jump on the band wagon. Just because many "experts" concur with one, does not make him/her right. Motivations make a difference also, as someone else said in an earlier post.
I don't support the Green New Deal. I have no intention of supporting the bankruptcy of our country, just to bankroll a fantasy. The only way man is going to control climate change is to build a huge dome over their environment where they can control the climate inside. Our world will change whether mankind is here or not. I agree that man can contribute to pollution and that can be remedied to a certain extent by lowering pollutants. I do not agree with some nuts idea of lowering the population of cattle to bring down the methane gas from flatulence.
Scientists have proven to us that plants thrive in CO2 and produce oxygen. Thank goodness we can't eliminate CO2.
When everything is going well and nature is in balance, the world's plants absorb 25% of the CO2. The planet's oceans absorb the remaining 75%. The problem is that TODAY the system is NOT in balance. This can be proved by the bleaching of the coral which is the new coral dying. The reason for this out-of-balance situation is the recent (especially the last 8 years) increase in the earth's heat - which is the subject of Global Warming that we are now discussing.

[jimjamuser]

Everything I have read agrees with your point on frequency. However, the problem is the increased intensity of the storms caused by the increased moisture due to the higher levels of CO2 that cause the warming of the ocean -- this is what we saw with Hurricane Ian.

Another point that I don't believe anyone addressed directly was the air quality problem caused by fossil fuels. This was a huge problem in China and which they are now working to fix. Also, in places like Salt Lake City, which has an inversion because of its topography, it has been exacerbated by the population explosion there and the overcrowded highways, causing it on one day in 2021 to have the worst air quality in the world. This is directly related to the exhaust from motor vehicles -- this was told to me by an EPA scientist.

So, as others have alluded to, overpopulation is a contributing factor to this issue.
Agreed. Many good points.

[Taltarzac725]

Historians did not seem to pay much attention to the weather before the 1920s except for major hurricanes and the like.

Meteorology - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology)

Lewis Fry Richardson - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Fry_Richardson)

[Worldseries27]

i think this topic is very important and should not be categorized as political. The problem is that there are those who have made it political. It affects us all, as we can see with the latest hurricane, which caused so much damage and flooding because according to the experts contained more water and flooding effects because of global warming.
this is climate change.

[Veiragirl]

i think this topic is very important and should not be categorized as political. The problem is that there are those who have made it political. It affects us all, as we can see with the latest hurricane, which caused so much damage and flooding because according to the experts contained more water and flooding effects because of global warming.


so true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Red Rose]

We are trying to go green overnight instead of one step at a time. By going all in we are now creating worse problems for everyone. Trying to change things overnight like this makes
it difficult for the average person in the US to afford basic needs. If quality of life is destroyed for the sake of one person trying to look like a hero, then the green deal is sadly flawed and just plain disastrous.

[MartinSE]

this is climate change.

People always die from heart attacks; why bother trying to prevent it? People are going to start dying from the results of Climate Change; why bother to try and prevent it - people are going to die anyway.

(Sarcasm, but two lines not one)

[Taltarzac725]

People always die from heart attacks; why bother trying to prevent it? People are going to start dying from the results of Climate Change; why bother to try and prevent it - people are going to die anyway.

(Sarcasm, but two lines not one)

Flood control in the Netherlands - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands)

Some countries are doing things.

Room for the River (Netherlands - Wikipedia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_for_the_River_(Netherlands))

[MartinSE]

Flood control in the Netherlands - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands)

Some countries are doing things.

Room for the River (Netherlands - Wikipedia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_for_the_River_(Netherlands))

Yes, many are Even here in Florida, Miami is working on massive pumping stations and dikes to hold back the rising ocean. They have to pay for it themselves, but we are not allowed to discuss why the federal government refused their request for aid.

If climate change is real, the odds are S. Florida, all of it below Lake Ockachobee will be underwater, not much, but enough to destroy trillions of dollars of property.

This is expected in the next 30 to 50 years.

There are already discussions about if the State will subsidize insurance companies providing flood insurance. Sadly, unless the state/feds agree to go the route of Holland and build a massive dike system up the east and west coasts, I am completely opposed to taxpayers paying for the coming floods. It is time for property owners to start cutting their losses and getting out of S. Florida. Needless to say, that is going to be somewhat controversial.

On the other hand, I expect great deals on land on the coasts of S. Florida if you don't believe Climate Change is real.

[JMintzer]

China is committed to and is making progress.

But that is not the most disturbing part of your comment. Are you saying that because we can't do everything, we shouldn't do anything?

Is that why China is building more coal fired electric plants and everyone else?

[jimjamuser]

Care to modify that statement????? RECORDED history goes back about 6,000 years. Weather records go back about 150 years. So the truth is, NOBODY knows how the past 8 years compare to recorded history, much less the last 4 million years of our current ice age. You can walk back that first line to say in recorded weather history, but then you are looking at a miniscule slice of recorded history.
Yes, I did change it to the warmest 8 years in recorded weather history. Thanks!

[I'm Popeye!]

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the


Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.


Are we drowning yet....

[jimjamuser]

Yes, many are Even here in Florida, Miami is working on massive pumping stations and dikes to hold back the rising ocean. They have to pay for it themselves, but we are not allowed to discuss why the federal government refused their request for aid.

If climate change is real, the odds are S. Florida, all of it below Lake Ockachobee will be underwater, not much, but enough to destroy trillions of dollars of property.

This is expected in the next 30 to 50 years.

There are already discussions about if the State will subsidize insurance companies providing flood insurance. Sadly, unless the state/feds agree to go the route of Holland and build a massive dike system up the east and west coasts, I am completely opposed to taxpayers paying for the coming floods. It is time for property owners to start cutting their losses and getting out of S. Florida. Needless to say, that is going to be somewhat controversial.

On the other hand, I expect great deals on land on the coasts of S. Florida if you don't believe Climate Change is real.
Since the vast majority of climate scientists predict continued Global Warming for the next 30 years, the US military and Navy are making contingency plans for abandoning many low-lying Naval bases on the East Coast. This includes Annapolis (and may include Jacksonville).

[MartinSE]

I recall almost exactly these same discussions a few years back when COVID started; just substitute Climate Change for COVID, and they are almost identical. Then 6.5 million people died.

[windylou]

Best reply yet!
Don't forget, in the 1960's people were claiming GLOBAL COOLING was going to tip the earth over due to the enlarging ice cap!
God's the only one who will destroy His earth.. Thank Him for His many blessings!

Thank you. This is my belief also that God created the earth, and you can see changes in forever time when there were so few men, women and children around to warm the earth. I will live my life watching the weather every day and marvel at the wonders.

[Kenswing]

Since the vast majority of climate scientists predict continued Global Warming for the next 30 years, the US military and Navy are making contingency plans for abandoning many low-lying Naval bases on the East Coast. This includes Annapolis (and may include Jacksonville).

I suppose it would be too much of an inconvenience to ask you for any reference material on that claim?

[Kenswing]

I didn't thnk the Defence Department was a bunch of leftist liberals. I guess I was wrong.

[sarcasm]

Is this your way of saying goodbye? :1rotfl:

[MartinSE]

Is this your way of saying goodbye? :1rotfl:

LOL! I don't see a political letter in the whole post, but I guess it could be!

[MartinSE]

I suppose it would be too much of an inconvenience to ask you for any reference material on that claim?

A few tangent to the subject, while we wait for his reply.

Planning for Changing Sea Levels (https://www.usace.army.mil/corpsclimate/Planning_for_Changing_Sea_Levels/)

DOD, Navy Confront Climate Change Challenges in Southern Virginia > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2703096/dod-navy-confront-climate-change-challenges-in-southern-virginia/)

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF11275.pdf

‘Climate change is going to cost us’: How the US military is preparing for harsher environments (https://www.defensenews.com/smr/energy-and-environment/2021/08/09/climate-change-is-going-to-cost-us-how-the-us-military-is-preparing-for-harsher-environments/)

[golfing eagles]

People always die from heart attacks; why bother trying to prevent it? People are going to start dying from the results of Climate Change; why bother to try and prevent it - people are going to die anyway.

(Sarcasm, but two lines not one)

And how many will die if we waste 100 trillion fighting “global warming “?

[Worldseries27]

thank you. This is my belief also that god created the earth, and you can see changes in forever time when there were so few men, women and children around to warm the earth. I will live my life watching the weather every day and marvel at the wonders.
me too

[MartinSE]

And how many will die if we waste 100 trillion fighting “global warming “?

I don't know, tell me HOW MANY. Please provide evidence.

Well, let me think, is this an exaggeration?

I don't recall any numbers over a trillion. And you know, we spent $3T fighting a war that we forgot to tell the military what victory looked like, so, after two decades, we tucked our tails between our legs and limped home. How many people died then?

$100T? I doubt it

$1T. Maybe, we gave way 3 times that much in COVID relief.

How many lives may die if Climate Change is real and we don't fight it?

In case you missed it, that post was labeled sarcasm.

[jimjamuser]

I just heard a news report on the radio that blends together current events, farming, and the HIGH COSTS of Global Warming that we have been discussing. The US produces 30% of the world's raw cotton. We all are now aware of the fact that the last 8 years were globally the hottest in about 150 years when temperatures began to be recorded. Well, this new recent occurrence ties these issues together. We, also, all know that there have been record and near-record temperatures set throughout the SouthWest US.

Well, northern Texas has just TRIED to harvest its cotton crop. Due to excessive heat, their cotton harvest is down a disastrous 50% or more from normal. The news article said that it would cost the north Texas area BILLIONS and would ripple through the state economy. Also, I imagine that the worldwide cost of finished cotton products will go up. I imagine that 1st thing tomorrow that I will run out and buy some cotton T-shirts and denim pants before the price goes up.

But seriously, I think that this is a good example of how everyday people can be affected by price increases and cost of living increases that are a direct result of the inability of humans to deal with the planet's heat increases. I am sure that there will be naysayers telling me that we just have an isolated incident here. But, I see the record heat in the SouthWest to be very meaningful, especially in light of all the examples that I and others have given about rising planetary heat.
..........The Mother Earth is trying to signal something to us humans and she is not being SUBTLE !

[MartinSE]

I just heard a news report on the radio that blends together current events, farming, and the HIGH COSTS of Global Warming that we have been discussing. The US produces 30% of the world's raw cotton. We all are now aware of the fact that the last 8 years were globally the hottest in about 150 years when temperatures began to be recorded. Well, this new recent occurrence ties these issues together. We, also, all know that there have been record and near-record temperatures set throughout the SouthWest US.

Well, northern Texas has just TRIED to harvest its cotton crop. Due to excessive heat, their cotton harvest is down a disastrous 50% or more from normal. The news article said that it would cost the north Texas area BILLIONS and would ripple through the state economy. Also, I imagine that the worldwide cost of finished cotton products will go up. I imagine that 1st thing tomorrow that I will run out and buy some cotton T-shirts and denim pants before the price goes up.

But seriously, I think that this is a good example of how everyday people can be affected by price increases and cost of living increases that are a direct result of the inability of humans to deal with the planet's heat increases. I am sure that there will be naysayers telling me that we just have an isolated incident here. But, I see the record heat in the SouthWest to be very meaningful, especially in light of all the examples that I and others have given about rising planetary heat.
..........The Mother Earth is trying to signal something to us humans and she is not being SUBTLE !

Sadly, I am going to be one of THOSE.

I do believe this to be a singleton event. So, I personally will not use it as "proof."

I think it is worth noting and adding to the growing evidence, but it is just one data point out of literally millions in the database.

However, I think it is a good example of secondary effects that can ripple through the economy. And not just the US economy, the world will be impacted, not the end of the world impacted, but a little and every little bit hurts. You recall "death by a thousand cuts."

[golfing eagles]

I don't know, tell me HOW MANY. Please provide evidence.

Well, let me think, is this an exaggeration?

I don't recall any numbers over a trillion. And you know, we spent $3T fighting a war that we forgot to tell the military what victory looked like, so, after two decades, we tucked our tails between our legs and limped home. How many people died then?

$100T? I doubt it

$1T. Maybe, we gave way 3 times that much in COVID relief.

How many lives may die if Climate Change is real and we don't fight it?

In case you missed it, that post was labeled sarcasm.

Let's jog the memory:

"The McKinsey report puts it bluntly. To achieve net zero emissions by 2050 would require substantial capital allocation by governments and the private sector to transform the global economy – approximately US$9.2 trillion in annual spending on physical assets in energy and land use systems over the next 28 years. The net zero scenario has been estimated to cost around 7.5 per cent of global gross domestic product, while the increase in spending required over current levels works out to around half of all corporate profits and one-quarter of all tax revenues in 2020!"

Let's see: 9.2 T x 28 years =257.6 TRILLION. I guess I underestimated. "Nothing over 1 trillion" is simply delusional

[Byte1]

When everything is going well and nature is in balance, the world's plants absorb 25% of the CO2. The planet's oceans absorb the remaining 75%. The problem is that TODAY the system is NOT in balance. This can be proved by the bleaching of the coral which is the new coral dying. The reason for this out-of-balance situation is the recent (especially the last 8 years) increase in the earth's heat - which is the subject of Global Warming that we are now discussing.

Is it "Global Warming" or Climate Change that we are discussing? My point is that the climate is always changing and that there is no proof that any of the changing is caused by man. Or, that man has any control over changing the cyclic changes in the climate.

[Byte1]

Flood control in the Netherlands - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands)

Some countries are doing things.

Room for the River (Netherlands - Wikipedia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_for_the_River_(Netherlands))

Actually, making changes to protect folks from the climate is not the same as controlling changes in the climate.

[Stu from NYC]

Let's jog the memory:

"The McKinsey report puts it bluntly. To achieve net zero emissions by 2050 would require substantial capital allocation by governments and the private sector to transform the global economy – approximately US$9.2 trillion in annual spending on physical assets in energy and land use systems over the next 28 years. The net zero scenario has been estimated to cost around 7.5 per cent of global gross domestic product, while the increase in spending required over current levels works out to around half of all corporate profits and one-quarter of all tax revenues in 2020!"

Let's see: 9.2 T x 28 years =257.6 TRILLION. I guess I underestimated. "Nothing over 1 trillion" is simply delusional

While we do this other nations like China will laugh at us while they take over the markets we used to sell to. None of this will go toward modernizing factories to produce products competively.

[Dusty_Star]

So, you think that by making rude insults you will encourage people to accept your view?
Do you have a degree in climatology? Where did you study and have you done any post-graduate work in the field? On that's right you are on the "common sense" side of the argument.
Please explain how electricity works?'
Please explain how a nuclear reactor works.
Please explain how a microwave oven works.
Please only use common sense - since you don't please people that have devoted their lives to studying the science behind why things work
And I am sure all the scientists have very low IQs and qualify as STUPID per your remarks

I am pretty sure that the rules of this forum say right at the top of every page: "USERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DIRECT COMMENTS TOWARD ANOTHER USER. DIRECT THEM TO THE TOPIC. VIOLATION OF THESE RULES CAN LEAD TO ACCOUNT TERMINATION AND BAN."

Please address the topic & do not cast aspersions & we will all have a more satisfying, cordial, & productive exchange of views.

[fdpaq0580]

Are we drowning yet....

Plymouth rock picture? High tide or low???

[Love2Swim]

Is it "Global Warming" or Climate Change that we are discussing? My point is that the climate is always changing and that there is no proof that any of the changing is caused by man. Or, that man has any control over changing the cyclic changes in the climate.

Of course climate is always changing. The scientists are alarmed because the rate of change is drastically different. And man DOES have control over the rate of change.

[golfing eagles]

Of course climate is always changing. The scientists are alarmed because the rate of change is drastically different. And man DOES have control over the rate of change.

The rate of change is drastically different????? Compared to WHAT?????

Compared to the last 150 years out of the last 4 million??? Yeah, right, that's meaningful :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Man has control over the rate of change???? Do we???? How do we know since we don't even know what is causing "change" (if there is any). And how would we change the climate????? Alter Earth's axis or our orbit around the sun???? Which is what you would have to do since they are the causes of climate change. All this fossil fuel nonsense is just babbling unless and until we have real data for a long enough period of time. Of course, that's thousands of years. Meanwhile, don't worry about the sky falling

[Kerlampert]

Any single event could easily be the first, or one of many heretofore unrecognized symptoms of climate change. Actually, global warming/climate change was a thing before the first brave politician ever mentioned it. Brave because he knew he was signing his political death warrant and would be subjected to ridicule.
The question, can man effect the climate?
Can an insect effect the life of a building?
I say "yes" to both questions.
The building may have an expected lifespan. A single insect can't do much. But hundreds of thousands of termites can certainly contribute to the early demise of that structure.
Likewise, earth with a smattering of humans probably wouldn't notice us. But with billions scouring the earth and destroying habitats and devouring resources. Yes! I do think human activity is definitely having an effect. And billions more to come from the billions here already.
Like lemmings who over populated and destroyed their island home, they jump in the sea and hope to find another home. We live on an island in space. How soon before we over populate and the planet can't cope? We are not yet able to, figuratively speaking, jump off this island and start swimming.

As we move to the Villages, now is a good time to reflect on this basic issue. How many persons can sustainably live in Florida?
Everyone wants the mild climate and proximity to the ocean.
But this is one of the most fragile ecospheres.
And the storm probability makes residing here an even riskier idea.

I guess The Villages and Babcock Ranch are examples of the most populated communities that are properly designed to handle these environmental stressers.

[Byte1]

As we move to the Villages, now is a good time to reflect on this basic issue. How many persons can sustainably live in Florida?
Everyone wants the mild climate and proximity to the ocean.
But this is one of the most fragile ecospheres.
And the storm probability makes residing here an even riskier idea.

I guess The Villages and Babcock Ranch are examples of the most populated communities that are properly designed to handle these environmental stressers.

Florida
We don't want the state to tip over and/or sink. :a20:

[jimjamuser]

Let's jog the memory:

"The McKinsey report puts it bluntly. To achieve net zero emissions by 2050 would require substantial capital allocation by governments and the private sector to transform the global economy – approximately US$9.2 trillion in annual spending on physical assets in energy and land use systems over the next 28 years. The net zero scenario has been estimated to cost around 7.5 per cent of global gross domestic product, while the increase in spending required over current levels works out to around half of all corporate profits and one-quarter of all tax revenues in 2020!"

Let's see: 9.2 T x 28 years =257.6 TRILLION. I guess I underestimated. "Nothing over 1 trillion" is simply delusional
I would say that you can pay Mother Nature today or pay much more tomorrow. While I don't expect US net zero emissions by 2050 I DO expect that intelligent human beings will look at changes like the dying of reef coral and the rapid animal species extinction and move in the DIRECTION of zero emissions. There are some possible areas of improvement that can take place without undue cost or lifestyle changes for US Americans. In terms of electric vehicles, there have been recent discoveries of lithium in mining areas of Alaska. We may not be dependent on China for lithium batteries. The newest design of nuclear power generators has great improvements in safety and safe spent fuel disposal. The US can wean itself SLOWLY away from the internal combustion engine. California has plans for that and Finland is going to require 100% of all new car sales to be electric in one or two years. The Villages could make a similar requirement for golf carts in the future and add charging stations. It's all a matter of human willpower and a willingness to change. The technology IS CERTAINLY there. It is fixed-in-place mindsets that hold back innovation and progress, not science and technology. The younger 50 and 55-year-old Villagers arriving now may be more concerned about moving toward net zero emissions and be more flexible about the topic of climate change.

As to "the one-quarter of all tax revenues in 2020"..........let me turn that around........in order to get anything worthwhile accomplished in a country as BIG as the US, you need Federal and State Government support and DIRECTION leading to BIG ideas and projects - for example, the space program of the 1960s. It might be prudent at this juncture in history to raise the Corporate tax rate a SMALL amount in order to balance the budget and allow the US government to move more aggressively toward solving the problem of environmental degradation being caused by climate change.

Imagine the incredible costs of not doing anything. We will pay dearly if the oceans rise enough to threaten the FUNCTION of the Eastern Naval bases - as is predicted by 2050. What would be the cost of losing Miami to a warming ocean and stronger hurricanes? Most scientists say that this IS happening. A small % of scientists say that it is not. Why take that chance? Simple lifestyle changes can GUARANTEE that it doesn't happen and as a fringe benefit, US air and water quality will increase. And there will be increased jobs in environmental science and engineering. It is a win-win for everyone and Mother Nature can turn her frown into a smile!!!!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

A few tangent to the subject, while we wait for his reply.

Planning for Changing Sea Levels (https://www.usace.army.mil/corpsclimate/Planning_for_Changing_Sea_Levels/)

DOD, Navy Confront Climate Change Challenges in Southern Virginia > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2703096/dod-navy-confront-climate-change-challenges-in-southern-virginia/)

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF11275.pdf

‘Climate change is going to cost us’: How the US military is preparing for harsher environments (https://www.defensenews.com/smr/energy-and-environment/2021/08/09/climate-change-is-going-to-cost-us-how-the-us-military-is-preparing-for-harsher-environments/)
Great information there, thank you!

[jimjamuser]

Sadly, I am going to be one of THOSE.

I do believe this to be a singleton event. So, I personally will not use it as "proof."

I think it is worth noting and adding to the growing evidence, but it is just one data point out of literally millions in the database.

However, I think it is a good example of secondary effects that can ripple through the economy. And not just the US economy, the world will be impacted, not the end of the world impacted, but a little and every little bit hurts. You recall "death by a thousand cuts."
Admittedly, a single event. That is why scientists use trend lines to determine CLIMATE change. They aggregate events like the cotton harvest with many others. The real proof is in the sea level increase measurements and the world's ice cap measurements of decrease.

[jimjamuser]

While we do this other nations like China will laugh at us while they take over the markets we used to sell to. None of this will go toward modernizing factories to produce products competively.
Chinese people own DOUBLE the number of Electric cars and trucks per capita as the US. Chinese society has become more autocratic in recent years and their industrial growth and productivity have dropped. They FAILED to protect their citizens from Covid. The US has overtaken them as far as GNP. China is in a tailspin. They also produce the most total pollution in the world - adding to increased climate change, And they are overfishing the oceans to provide protein for their increasing middle-class and large population. And they are becoming more belligerent militarily.

[Byte1]

Chinese people own DOUBLE the number of Electric cars and trucks per capita as the US. Chinese society has become more autocratic in recent years and their industrial growth and productivity have dropped. They FAILED to protect their citizens from Covid. The US has overtaken them as far as GNP. China is in a tailspin. They also produce the most total pollution in the world - adding to increased climate change, And they are overfishing the oceans to provide protein for their increasing middle-class and large population. And they are becoming more belligerent militarily.

Man does not change the weather patterns. Pollution is a different thing. Climate is the weather pattern over a period of time, ie. 30 years span. Overfishing does not change the climate. Covid does not change the climate, etc.
Man can change the pollution element, but does not change the climate. The only way man can effect the cyclic changes would be to change the orbit of Earth from the Sun or maybe remove the moon so there would be no tide changes.
If folks want to make a big deal out of air pollution/air quality then they would have more credibility, but to constantly harp on "man made/caused" global warming, climate change, etc. is just folly. Start with a realistic agenda, AIR POLLUTION. You will get more folks to pay attention. It's no wonder there are so many folks challenging Climate Change/Control as a HOAX as an attempt to spend/extort money.
Oh, I guess man CAN effect the weather short term by causing a Nuclear Winter.

[fdpaq0580]

Man has control over the rate of change???? How do we know since we don't even know what is causing "change" (if there is any). And how would we change the climate????? Alter Earth's axis or our orbit around the sun???? Which is what you would have to do since they are the causes of climate change. All this fossil fuel nonsense is just babbling unless and until we have real data for a long enough period of time. Of course, that's thousands of years. Meanwhile, don't worry about the sky falling

We can effect the rate of change, in small ways, over time. One way is to "take your foot off the gas", in a manner of speaking. Use what we need in the most fuel efficient ways possible. Why go 75 when 60/65 might use 25 to 30 percent less fuel.

Changing the axis or orbit is not the only things that change climate. Heat absorption and reflection are also causes. These are affected by the make up of our atmosphere. The makeup of the atmosphere if affected by the health of our oceans and forests. Our oceans are not healthy partly due to human activity on a global scale. Our forests are being devastated, slashed and burned, at an alarming rate globally. Some of what used to be forest has been turned into tremendous cities and centers of industry. Concrete and asphalt soaking up the heat of the sun. The rest of the lost forests are being turned into farms and ranches, plantations for plants that have only a small percentage of the ability to change co2 into oxygen.
All of this contribute to climate change.
And, as to the recorded information, the records and charts are only a small part of recorded history of our planet. The geological record of our planet are easily read by those who know how. They tell of climates, of the atmosphere, of life and of the time before life. Evidence is there for those that care, really care, to see it.

To anyone who would respond with, "prove it" or "show me your reference", I say I have done my research and learned over a lifetime. Do your own research. Throw away your prejudices and pre-conceptions and search for truth, not confirmation of your old ideas.

[I'm Popeye!]

Plymouth rock picture? High tide or low???

Still visible after 400 years, now in its protected environment. That's good enough to know we will not be drowning any time soon like some might think...

[jimjamuser]

We can effect the rate of change, in small ways, over time. One way is to "take your foot off the gas", in a manner of speaking. Use what we need in the most fuel efficient ways possible. Why go 75 when 60/65 might use 25 to 30 percent less fuel.

Changing the axis or orbit is not the only things that change climate. Heat absorption and reflection are also causes. These are affected by the make up of our atmosphere. The makeup of the atmosphere if affected by the health of our oceans and forests. Our oceans are not healthy partly due to human activity on a global scale. Our forests are being devastated, slashed and burned, at an alarming rate globally. Some of what used to be forest has been turned into tremendous cities and centers of industry. Concrete and asphalt soaking up the heat of the sun. The rest of the lost forests are being turned into farms and ranches, plantations for plants that have only a small percentage of the ability to change co2 into oxygen.
All of this contribute to climate change.
And, as to the recorded information, the records and charts are only a small part of recorded history of our planet. The geological record of our planet are easily read by those who know how. They tell of climates, of the atmosphere, of life and of the time before life. Evidence is there for those that care, really care, to see it.

To anyone who would respond with, "prove it" or "show me your reference", I say I have done my research and learned over a lifetime. Do your own research. Throw away your prejudices and pre-conceptions and search for truth, not confirmation of your old ideas.
All true and VERY informative!

[Stu from NYC]

Chinese people own DOUBLE the number of Electric cars and trucks per capita as the US. Chinese society has become more autocratic in recent years and their industrial growth and productivity have dropped. They FAILED to protect their citizens from Covid. The US has overtaken them as far as GNP. China is in a tailspin. They also produce the most total pollution in the world - adding to increased climate change, And they are overfishing the oceans to provide protein for their increasing middle-class and large population. And they are becoming more belligerent militarily.

Our GNP has always been higher than China's Their growth rate has dropped but still higher than ours. They do protect their citizens from Covid but do it very heavenly handed by closing the city when there is a case and not allowing people to leave their homes other than say once a week one person goes out to shop.

If they go out otherwise off to prison they go.

[fdpaq0580]

Still visible after 400 years, now in its protected environment. That's good enough to know we will not be drowning any time soon like some might think...

Thanks! My mind is at ease now that I know we can enjoy the beaches next month.

[benj]

Reading this thread reminds me of an old saying. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.

[jimjamuser]

There is a feedback loop between OCEAN health and Climate Change. They each affect the other. A healthy ocean acts like a storage area for CO2 to keep climate in balance. Today we can see many signs of adverse ocean health caused by man through overfishing. With respect to overfishing the oceans by giant national fishing fleets, the term BYCATCH comes up. This means any fish or mammal that is UNINTENDED to be caught but ends up in the huge nets and most end up dying. China is the #1 overfishing nation, but the US is also in the top 10. 1/3 of all sharks and rays are in danger of extinction due to overfishing. Bycatch is the leading cause of death of 300,000 whales and dolphins per YEAR - turtles and seals are also killed.

1/2 of the world's human population depends on fish for their major source of protein. Since 1970 global populations of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians have declined by 70%.

Bycatch eliminates much smaller fish that eat algae that grow on coral reefs. When these fish are overfished, the algae grows uncontrollably and the reefs suffer as a result. This creates an extreme disruption in the ocean ecosystem. 75% of mankind's CO2 production needs to be absorbed by the world's oceans to keep things in balance and avoid global warming. The oceans need to be healthy to do that work. Overfishing is one of many examples of human causation of ecological problems!

[JMintzer]

The rate of change is drastically different????? Compared to WHAT?????

Compared to the last 150 years out of the last 4 million??? Yeah, right, that's meaningful :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Man has control over the rate of change???? Do we???? How do we know since we don't even know what is causing "change" (if there is any). And how would we change the climate????? Alter Earth's axis or our orbit around the sun???? Which is what you would have to do since they are the causes of climate change. All this fossil fuel nonsense is just babbling unless and until we have real data for a long enough period of time. Of course, that's thousands of years. Meanwhile, don't worry about the sky falling

I'm surprised no one has mentioned "sun spots" or "solar flares"...

[JMintzer]

I would say that you can pay Mother Nature today or pay much more tomorrow. While I don't expect US net zero emissions by 2050 I DO expect that intelligent human beings will look at changes like the dying of reef coral and the rapid animal species extinction and move in the DIRECTION of zero emissions. There are some possible areas of improvement that can take place without undue cost or lifestyle changes for US Americans. In terms of electric vehicles, there have been recent discoveries of lithium in mining areas of Alaska. We may not be dependent on China for lithium batteries. The newest design of nuclear power generators has great improvements in safety and safe spent fuel disposal. The US can wean itself SLOWLY away from the internal combustion engine. California has plans for that and Finland is going to require 100% of all new car sales to be electric in one or two years. The Villages could make a similar requirement for golf carts in the future and add charging stations. It's all a matter of human willpower and a willingness to change. The technology IS CERTAINLY there. It is fixed-in-place mindsets that hold back innovation and progress, not science and technology. The younger 50 and 55-year-old Villagers arriving now may be more concerned about moving toward net zero emissions and be more flexible about the topic of climate change.

As to "the one-quarter of all tax revenues in 2020"..........let me turn that around........in order to get anything worthwhile accomplished in a country as BIG as the US, you need Federal and State Government support and DIRECTION leading to BIG ideas and projects - for example, the space program of the 1960s. It might be prudent at this juncture in history to raise the Corporate tax rate a SMALL amount in order to balance the budget and allow the US government to move more aggressively toward solving the problem of environmental degradation being caused by climate change.

Imagine the incredible costs of not doing anything. We will pay dearly if the oceans rise enough to threaten the FUNCTION of the Eastern Naval bases - as is predicted by 2050. What would be the cost of losing Miami to a warming ocean and stronger hurricanes? Most scientists say that this IS happening. A small % of scientists say that it is not. Why take that chance? Simple lifestyle changes can GUARANTEE that it doesn't happen and as a fringe benefit, US air and water quality will increase. And there will be increased jobs in environmental science and engineering. It is a win-win for everyone and Mother Nature can turn her frown into a smile!!!!!!!!

https://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-000017289777-n5qjf4-t500x500.jpg

[JMintzer]

I would say that you can pay Mother Nature today or pay much more tomorrow. While I don't expect US net zero emissions by 2050 I DO expect that intelligent human beings will look at changes like the dying of reef coral and the rapid animal species extinction and move in the DIRECTION of zero emissions. There are some possible areas of improvement that can take place without undue cost or lifestyle changes for US Americans. In terms of electric vehicles, there have been recent discoveries of lithium in mining areas of Alaska. We may not be dependent on China for lithium batteries. The newest design of nuclear power generators has great improvements in safety and safe spent fuel disposal. The US can wean itself SLOWLY away from the internal combustion engine. California has plans for that and Finland is going to require 100% of all new car sales to be electric in one or two years. The Villages could make a similar requirement for golf carts in the future and add charging stations. It's all a matter of human willpower and a willingness to change. The technology IS CERTAINLY there. It is fixed-in-place mindsets that hold back innovation and progress, not science and technology. The younger 50 and 55-year-old Villagers arriving now may be more concerned about moving toward net zero emissions and be more flexible about the topic of climate change.

As to "the one-quarter of all tax revenues in 2020"..........let me turn that around........in order to get anything worthwhile accomplished in a country as BIG as the US, you need Federal and State Government support and DIRECTION leading to BIG ideas and projects - for example, the space program of the 1960s. It might be prudent at this juncture in history to raise the Corporate tax rate a SMALL amount in order to balance the budget and allow the US government to move more aggressively toward solving the problem of environmental degradation being caused by climate change.

Imagine the incredible costs of not doing anything. We will pay dearly if the oceans rise enough to threaten the FUNCTION of the Eastern Naval bases - as is predicted by 2050. What would be the cost of losing Miami to a warming ocean and stronger hurricanes? Most scientists say that this IS happening. A small % of scientists say that it is not. Why take that chance? Simple lifestyle changes can GUARANTEE that it doesn't happen and as a fringe benefit, US air and water quality will increase. And there will be increased jobs in environmental science and engineering. It is a win-win for everyone and Mother Nature can turn her frown into a smile!!!!!!!!

Do you have any links to back up ANY of your claims?

Finland is NOT going to require 100% EVs in 1-2 years. There is currently ZERO legislation to back up that claim.

We can't even drill for oil in Alaska and you think they'll allow Litihum mining? LOL!

Your claim that "a small % of scientists disagree" has been debunked, several times. Yet you keep citing that false claim...

[Mortal1]

it's called "science" and while some folks prefer their version of science which includes humans able to effect the earths natural changes...well they are literally ****ing into the wind of reality.

Think of one volcano exploding...ie: mt. St. Helens. it puts more toxic, world climate changing crap into the atmosphere than 100 years of mans pollution.

So please...if you need to blame mankind for anything then blame it on making you able to live as long and well as you do. Just think that 100 years ago old age was in your 50's/60's. So if most of us would be dead, or near dead, by now fewer people, less pollution.

Get over it.

[fdpaq0580]

it's called "science" and while some folks prefer their version of science which includes humans able to effect the earths natural changes...well they are literally ****ing into the wind of reality.

Think of one volcano exploding...ie: mt. St. Helens. it puts more toxic, world climate changing crap into the atmosphere than 100 years of mans pollution.

So please...if you need to blame mankind for anything then blame it on making you able to live as long and well as you do. Just think that 100 years ago old age was in your 50's/60's. So if most of us would be dead, or near dead, by now fewer people, less pollution.

Get over it.

Sometimes I just have to shake my head in wonder! 😏

[jimjamuser]

Finland has subsidized the purchase of new EVs since 2018 by 2,000 Euros per car. They even have E-snowmobiles. Norway has set a goal that 100% of new cars sold should be zero emission (electric or hydrogen) by 2025. They even have a great E-motorcycle product. Germany is also at the top end of countries with EVs per capita. Even China is double the per capita ownership of EVs as the US.

[Byte1]

How are electric cars going to stop the Climate from Changing? They may/MAY assist in a cleaner air by eliminating SOME pollution, but we will still be pumping oil, since many of our products are created using oil. Is mining lithium good for our environment? When exposed to water, I know that lithium creates hydrogen gas, which is very volatile/combustible. Personally, I like my lithium battery powered hand tools, BUT I also know that they are not as powerful as my old fossil fuel powered tools. Just a few observations. I have not been convinced that man is powerful enough or god like that we can change the climate. If so, can someone raise the temps during the winter up in the mountains up North so that I can enjoy a warmer mountain climate? I prefer the mountains over the flat Florida landscape, but it gets way too chilly up North in the mountains.

[JMintzer]

Finland has subsidized the purchase of new EVs since 2018 by 2,000 Euros per car. They even have E-snowmobiles. Norway has set a goal that 100% of new cars sold should be zero emission (electric or hydrogen) by 2025. They even have a great E-motorcycle product. Germany is also at the top end of countries with EVs per capita. Even China is double the per capita ownership of EVs as the US.

Norway? You previously said Finland was going 100% electric?

Electric snowmobiles? I can't wait to see the battery life on those when the temp is -20°...

[Byte1]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned "sun spots" or "solar flares"...

I'm sure that someone on here will swear that sun spots and solar flares are a result of our use of electronics and that if we were to get rid of all of our cell phones and go to land lines, we would be saving Earth from sun spots and solar flares. :boom:

[jimjamuser]

How are electric cars going to stop the Climate from Changing? They may/MAY assist in a cleaner air by eliminating SOME pollution, but we will still be pumping oil, since many of our products are created using oil. Is mining lithium good for our environment? When exposed to water, I know that lithium creates hydrogen gas, which is very volatile/combustible. Personally, I like my lithium battery powered hand tools, BUT I also know that they are not as powerful as my old fossil fuel powered tools. Just a few observations. I have not been convinced that man is powerful enough or god like that we can change the climate. If so, can someone raise the temps during the winter up in the mountains up North so that I can enjoy a warmer mountain climate? I prefer the mountains over the flat Florida landscape, but it gets way too chilly up North in the mountains.
Actually, I have studied electrical principles somewhat. Batteries produce direct current (DC) and everyone's home electricity is alternating current (AC at 120 volts). When it comes to motors inside common hand tools like drills - the DC motor is normally considered more "powerful" because the INITIAL TORQUE of a DC motor is superior to an AC motor. Even when you compare a large automobile engine like DC versus an internal combustion engine - the DC motor wins the 0 to 60 mph time trials because of the fact that DC motors have the greatest INITIAL TORQUE.

Originally Tomas Edison planned to electrify cities with DC power. But, AC won that battle because with very efficient transformers and voltage changes AC can be transferred greater distances than DC.

As to the question of "How are electric cars going to STOP the climate from changing? That requires a longer answer which could be pieced together by the posts made by myself and others. Here is the quick and dirty version...........
........When trees and plants are cut down for concrete and golf courses and the earth's ocean becomes polluted with plastic and excess CO2, the water becomes slightly acidic and bleaches and kills the new growth of coral on the reefs. Algae can also attack the coral (which was talked about in a previous post). Without coral, the fish die. And the ocean dies, in that, it can no longer act as a container or buffer to hold CO2.
Then excess CO2 ends up in the upper atmosphere and acts like an insulating blanket to the earth, which becomes hotter as a result.

The internal combustion engine (ICE) some call it infernal combustion........produces a large part of the CO2 total from burning fossil fuel. Power plants generating electricity also burn fossil fuel, but since they are at a SINGLE location (as opposed to a moving automobile) the power plants can have more potent and large-scale CO2 scrubbers. When power plants can economically burn NATURAL GAS the pollutants cast off are minimal. Note : large scale forest fires like recently out west MUST also produce CO2.

Summary........the increasing popularity and worldwide use of electric vehicles (EV) will NOT stop Climate Change instantaneously, but are a long-term solution to the problem. And they are a solution that is available and affordable to each citizen in the 1st world. Over time, they will become more affordable and more attractive to the average citizen. As such, they become a GIFT to succeeding generations !

[golfing eagles]

Summary........the increasing popularity and worldwide use of electric vehicles (EV) will NOT stop Climate Change instantaneously, but are a long-term solution to the problem. And they are a solution that is available and affordable to each citizen in the 1st world. Over time, they will become more affordable and more attractive to the average citizen. As such, they become a GIFT to succeeding generations !

Once again, it is NO SOLUTION WHATSOEVER, the reason being that CO2 emissions are NOT THE CAUSE of our current global warming. We have been warming for the last 20,000 years and will continue to warm for the next 20-30,000 years, EVEN IF THERE WERE NO CARS, NO POWER PLANTS, NO ELECTRICITY AND NO HUMAN BEINGS ON THE PLANET It's really not that hard to understand, yet there are those that would spend over $100 trillion to "combat" this myth
80-100,000 years ago our climate was similar to today's. The planet had been warming and continued to warm for the next 20,000 years or so. Then, it started cooling, so much so that 20,000 years ago NY City was covered in 2 miles of ice. Now, we have been warming ever since and the ice is gone, and we will continue to warm for another 20-30,000 years until NY City is covered in 400 feet of water. This is due to variations in Earth's orbit, it's axis, and different reflective indices of land and water. And all this has happened dozens of times in the last 4 million years, ALL WITHOUT THE HELP OF A SINGLE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE.
Despite this simple climate history, there are several that post long winded nonsense over and over about the same misinformation and dire predictions by those with an agenda, and then congratulate themselves on "great information" and "excellent post". There aren't enough little men rofl to respond to that :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[tvbound]

And there it is! Finally, the climate change advocates have come to call those of us with a knowledge of paleoclimatology and some common sense "selfish". This must be the same crew that called people who didn't wear a mask when driving their car alone "selfish"

Manipulate/purposely obfuscate???? That 90% number has been debunked multiple times. And isn't it the climatologists who jump on the bandwagon to obtain grant money the ones who are "selfish"?

"Try to slow down the adverse effects"?---to the tune of bankrupting the world???? That would lead to consequences far worse than driving your SUV.

And anyone who thinks the peak of this cyclical warming is any closer than 15-25,000 years away----like the 12 years that was previously stated or even within the lifetimes of our grandchildren, well...........I can't write it.

LOL

Instead of spending the time to refute almost every single one of your sentences, which fit one of the below categories, I'll just repeat from my earlier post - that you have so aptly shown to be correct.

"...who refuse to believe/try to manipulate/purposely obfuscate the science..."


My favorite part though, is the astounding hubris exhibited in your statement..."call those of us with a knowledge of paleoclimatology and some common sense "selfish"."


I certainly don't claim to always be correct, but I am always on guard for those who are loquacious (as if quantity somehow equates to proof/correctness), have the need to be the smartest in the room and anything said in disagreement - must be instantly discounted. Have a great day.

[golfing eagles]

LOL

Instead of spending the time to refute almost every single one of your sentences, which fit one of the below categories, I'll just repeat from my earlier post - that you have so aptly shown to be correct.

"...who refuse to believe/try to manipulate/purposely obfuscate the science..."


My favorite part though, is the astounding hubris exhibited in your statement..."call those of us with a knowledge of paleoclimatology and some common sense "selfish"."


I certainly don't claim to always be correct, but I am always on guard for those who are loquacious (as if quantity somehow equates to proof/correctness), have the need to be the smartest in the room and anything said in disagreement - must be instantly discounted. Have a great day.

Amazing---I'm sorry but i can hardly type because I'm laughing so hard.

Hubris????? Do you deny calling people who Joyce Whatsherface calls "Di-NYE-AHS" selfish????

Because here is your post:
From a very broad view, there are really two primary trains of thoughts on anthropogenic (human caused/contributed) climate change/warming.

1. Those who refuse to believe/try to manipulate/purposely obfuscate the science embraced by 90%+ of the world's legitimate scientists who are most educated on the subject, so that they are not inconvenienced in their current quality of life and bristle - at making any current sacrifice(s) for the future.

2. Those who actually care about the sustainability of the planet for their children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren/Etc. and are willing to take action and make sacrifices NOW, to 'TRY' and reverse/slow down the adverse effects to our planet already occurring.


Since I can't even imagine being that selfish...count me being in the latter group.

PS: I'm still laughing:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[jimjamuser]

At this point, I would like to say that I imagine, foresee, or predict that by 2050 there will be enough EVs, E golf carts, E-bikes, E-snowmobiles, E-boats, and E-motorcycles (or some other form of ZERO emission vehicles) used around the world - for scientists to be able to measure their effect on climate. Hopefully, the world's population will have remained about the same and there is no nuclear WW3. However, even if the planet continues to warm and hurricanes continue to get stronger - at least, the ZERO-emission vehicles will have contributed to cleaner air. I hope that we can all agree on that point and I hope that we are all alive to see 2050.

[golfing eagles]

At this point, I would like to say that I imagine, foresee, or predict that by 2050 there will be enough EVs, E golf carts, E-bikes, E-snowmobiles, E-boats, and E-motorcycles (or some other form of ZERO emission vehicles) used around the world - for scientists to be able to measure their effect on climate. Hopefully, the world's population will have remained about the same and there is no nuclear WW3. However, even if the planet continues to warm and hurricanes continue to get stronger - at least, the ZERO-emission vehicles will have contributed to cleaner air. I hope that we can all agree on that point and I hope that we are all alive to see 2050.

I can agree that those Zero-emission vehicles will contribute to cleaner air IF and only IF the electricity generated to power them is not derived from coal and oil burning power plants.

But I do highly doubt that another 28 years is anywhere long enough to collect data and make any valid conclusions about a 100,000 year climate cycle

[Stu from NYC]

At this point, I would like to say that I imagine, foresee, or predict that by 2050 there will be enough EVs, E golf carts, E-bikes, E-snowmobiles, E-boats, and E-motorcycles (or some other form of ZERO emission vehicles) used around the world - for scientists to be able to measure their effect on climate. Hopefully, the world's population will have remained about the same and there is no nuclear WW3. However, even if the planet continues to warm and hurricanes continue to get stronger - at least, the ZERO-emission vehicles will have contributed to cleaner air. I hope that we can all agree on that point and I hope that we are all alive to see 2050.

How is the energy needed to make the batteries to be derived from?

[fdpaq0580]

How is the energy needed to make the batteries to be derived from?

Wind turbines, solar, water wheels, tidal, hand crank and gerbil wheel generators. Ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
😎

[golfing eagles]

Wind turbines, solar, water wheels, tidal, hand crank and gerbil wheel generators. Ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
😎

There are 3 or 4 people on here that I would recommend for the hand crank job:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[fdpaq0580]

There are 3 or 4 people on here that I would recommend for the hand crank job:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Am I gonna need a new pair of work gloves? 😯

[golfing eagles]

Am I gonna need a new pair of work gloves? 😯

Why? Do you think you're one of them?????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[JMintzer]

LOL

Instead of spending the time to refute almost every single one of your sentences, which fit one of the below categories, I'll just repeat from my earlier post - that you have so aptly shown to be correct.

"...who refuse to believe/try to manipulate/purposely obfuscate the science..."


My favorite part though, is the astounding hubris exhibited in your statement..."call those of us with a knowledge of paleoclimatology and some common sense "selfish"."


I certainly don't claim to always be correct, but I am always on guard for those who are loquacious (as if quantity somehow equates to proof/correctness), have the need to be the smartest in the room and anything said in disagreement - must be instantly discounted. Have a great day.

Take a look at the top three posters on this thread and tell me again who is being "loquacious"?

[JMintzer]

At this point, I would like to say that I imagine, foresee, or predict that by 2050 there will be enough EVs, E golf carts, E-bikes, E-snowmobiles, E-boats, and E-motorcycles (or some other form of ZERO emission vehicles) used around the world - for scientists to be able to measure their effect on climate. Hopefully, the world's population will have remained about the same and there is no nuclear WW3. However, even if the planet continues to warm and hurricanes continue to get stronger - at least, the ZERO-emission vehicles will have contributed to cleaner air. I hope that we can all agree on that point and I hope that we are all alive to see 2050.

You have a very vivid imagination...

[JMintzer]

How is the energy needed to make the batteries to be derived from?

The energy fairy...

[JMintzer]

Am I gonna need a new pair of work gloves? 😯

To quote Ringo, at the end of "Helter Skelter"... "I've got blisters on me fingers!"

[jimjamuser]

You have a very vivid imagination...
Thank you. What a wonderful compliment !

[Stu from NYC]

Wow I started something. Wonder if I can get a job being a cranker for my wife?

[PersonOfInterest]

Wow, what a thread. I fail to see why this is so debated and that anyone actually believes humans can do anything to change weather, climate or global warming (if there is such a thing). We may be able to change some things within our own environment, but to change something on a Global scale is probably not within human reach. Do those who believe in God feel that God is not in control of the earth that he created? Do those who believe in Science feel that our level of scientific and technological knowledge is really capable of effecting change on such a global level? We should all leave the planet and then watch the earths evolution over the next few hundred years to see what, if any, change takes place. That's as solid a plan as any trying to have impact on the perceived global warming. IMHO

[PugMom]

don't we need coal to produce electricity??

[Stu from NYC]

don't we need coal to produce electricity??

It seems to be a closely guarded secret of those who are pushing strongly for EV;s

[golfing eagles]

It seems to be a closely guarded secret of those who are pushing strongly for EV;s

I may need a change in strategy

Look at it this way----There are some fairly intelligent and probably successful posters on this site who have bought hook, line and sinker into this climate change/EV fantasy. Now look at the average American, who is most likely less intelligent, and therefore even more likely to believe in that garbage.

May be time to buy Tesla and lithium mining stocks:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Stu from NYC]

I may need a change in strategy

Look at it this way----There are some fairly intelligent and probably successful posters on this site who have bought hook, line and sinker into this climate change/EV fantasy. Now look at the average American, who is most likely less intelligent, and therefore even more likely to believe in that garbage.

May be time to buy Tesla and lithium mining stocks:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

But what happens when someone invents a new technology that will replace EV's? Fusions day is coming.

[golfing eagles]

But what happens when someone invents a new technology that will replace EV's? Fusions day is coming.

The same people will be screaming "the sky is falling"----but it will be that lithium batteries for EVs and solar panels and windmill blades are going to destroy the planet in our lifetimes. It's the opposite of the James Dean movie "Rebel Without a Cause"-----these people will settle for ANY cause----save the whales, occupy wall st., blm, and now climate change.

[fdpaq0580]

don't we need coal to produce electricity??

No! There are alternatives to coal and oil, if we care to employ them. Atomic, solar, wind, hydro-electric, etc.

[fdpaq0580]

The same people will be screaming "the sky is falling"----but it will be that lithium batteries for EVs and solar panels and windmill blades are going to destroy the planet in our lifetimes. It's the opposite of the James Dean movie "Rebel Without a Cause"-----these people will settle for ANY cause----save the whales, occupy wall st., blm, and now climate change.

The sky is not falling, but the earth is warming and the actions of 8 billion humans with gigantic earth movers, coal and oil fired factories, wanton destruction of natural habitat is helping to speed up the process. When a few termites access a large structure with a normal lifespan, their activities and population increases hasten the demise of that structure. The termites can't see what they are doing and wouldn't care if they could. But humans are smarter than termites, still, some can't (or won't) see or acknowledge the big picture.
My wife and I have no kids or grand kids, and may have 20 years left, so we needn't care about human kind beyond that. But, we do. We care about our species, our planet, our country, our home. As far as "causes" go, I have two, one large cause "protect earth and keep her healthy'. That is for my fellow humans. My second and small cause is, " save the chocolate mousse". That one is for me. 🍰
😌🙏Peace

[jimjamuser]

Wow, what a thread. I fail to see why this is so debated and that anyone actually believes humans can do anything to change weather, climate or global warming (if there is such a thing). We may be able to change some things within our own environment, but to change something on a Global scale is probably not within human reach. Do those who believe in God feel that God is not in control of the earth that he created? Do those who believe in Science feel that our level of scientific and technological knowledge is really capable of effecting change on such a global level? We should all leave the planet and then watch the earths evolution over the next few hundred years to see what, if any, change takes place. That's as solid a plan as any trying to have impact on the perceived global warming. IMHO
Well, most of the world's scientists believe in global warming. The last 8 years are the globally warmest on recorded weather history - 150years. The world's coral reefs are dying and covered in algae due to overfishing by Chinese mega-fishing fleets. Which even sail with a giant fish processing plant about as big as a military carrier. They over-fish one area of the ocean and when there is nothing left but an empty ocean, they move around the globe. China isn't the only country overfishing. (this can easily be checked with the Google machine) This is an example of humans making Global Warming worse.

The pipeline carrying natural gas from Russia to Europe has been sabotaged leaving 4 holes in the pipe. This caused a great quantity of natural gas to erupt and flow into the upper atmosphere and likely causing greater planetary warming. Because of all these factors, most scientists predict increased warming for the next 30 years. This is another example of humans adding to Global Warming.

All over the world glaciers are melting and ending up in the sea. This makes the oceans rise by MEASURABLE amounts. Scientists have been making sea measurements for many years and are SICKENED by the rapid rate of ocean rise in the last few years. The US Navy is making plans for relocating or modifying all their bases on the east coast because of expected high water problems by 2050 (that can also be easily checked on Google) Oh and did I mention that hurricanes are INCREASING in intensity and destructive force........like the recent hurricane Ian, which we are all familiar with.

These and other facts have led most scientists to believe that man's activities are causing the recent warming of the earth........to the scientists, this is known as SETTLED SCIENCE. And they have been warning about this for over 40 years and the average person WON'T believe them. Maybe in 2050 when Miami is underwater and fish are swimming in underwater condos...................it will be too obvious to not be believed !

[jimjamuser]

don't we need coal to produce electricity??
Most electricity in the US is generated by natural gas because it is the most clean-burning fuel. It is clean enough to be burned in people's kitchens. China burns a lot of coal to produce electricity because they are so overpopulated. They would prefer NOT to because it produces great air pollution.

[jimjamuser]

I may need a change in strategy

Look at it this way----There are some fairly intelligent and probably successful posters on this site who have bought hook, line and sinker into this climate change/EV fantasy. Now look at the average American, who is most likely less intelligent, and therefore even more likely to believe in that garbage.

May be time to buy Tesla and lithium mining stocks:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
Actually, lithium mining stocks might be a good idea for a high-risk and high-reward purchase. However, since there is a recession predicted for early 2023, I will wait until then to check out any companies that are mining lithium in Alaska.

[mikemalloy]

Galileo was put under house arrest by the Church because he insisted that the sun not the earth was the center of the universe. The church's reason (ie. excuse) was that the vast majority of scientists at the time disagreed with him and believed that the earth was the center of the universe.

[jimjamuser]

The sky is not falling, but the earth is warming and the actions of 8 billion humans with gigantic earth movers, coal and oil fired factories, wanton destruction of natural habitat is helping to speed up the process. When a few termites access a large structure with a normal lifespan, their activities and population increases hasten the demise of that structure. The termites can't see what they are doing and wouldn't care if they could. But humans are smarter than termites, still, some can't (or won't) see or acknowledge the big picture.
My wife and I have no kids or grand kids, and may have 20 years left, so we needn't care about human kind beyond that. But, we do. We care about our species, our planet, our country, our home. As far as "causes" go, I have two, one large cause "protect earth and keep her healthy'. That is for my fellow humans. My second and small cause is, " save the chocolate mousse". That one is for me. 🍰
😌🙏Peace
That was a GREAT analogy about termites NOT seeing the big picture of their world's destruction. Humans are chewing away at their bigger world. Humans have great capacity for good, but also have the ability to self-destruct by nuclear annihilation of their own species.

[Byte1]

Go ahead and spend your OWN money on this hype, not mine. Scientists disagree with each other all the time, as much as some agree. The Earth had climate change before we existed and will continue to do so without any assistance with us. We can't stop it. Like I said before, we contribute to air pollution but we don't change the weather. So funny that those that claim to be soooo intelligent have a tendency to believe what other folks tell them, just because of paper credentials. We don't raise or lower the oceans. If you wish to argue about man's contribution to air pollution, I'm with you. If you think you are powerful enough to stop the rotation of the Earth or move it's track away from the Sun to cool it, your hubris is humorous. As it was in the beginning Climate change has always been and always will be, Amen.

[Stu from NYC]

Well, most of the world's scientists believe in global warming. The last 8 years are the globally warmest on recorded weather history - 150years. The world's coral reefs are dying and covered in algae due to overfishing by Chinese mega-fishing fleets. Which even sail with a giant fish processing plant about as big as a military carrier. They over-fish one area of the ocean and when there is nothing left but an empty ocean, they move around the globe. China isn't the only country overfishing. (this can easily be checked with the Google machine) This is an example of humans making Global Warming worse.

The pipeline carrying natural gas from Russia to Europe has been sabotaged leaving 4 holes in the pipe. This caused a great quantity of natural gas to erupt and flow into the upper atmosphere and likely causing greater planetary warming. Because of all these factors, most scientists predict increased warming for the next 30 years. This is another example of humans adding to Global Warming.

All over the world glaciers are melting and ending up in the sea. This makes the oceans rise by MEASURABLE amounts. Scientists have been making sea measurements for many years and are SICKENED by the rapid rate of ocean rise in the last few years. The US Navy is making plans for relocating or modifying all their bases on the east coast because of expected high water problems by 2050 (that can also be easily checked on Google) Oh and did I mention that hurricanes are INCREASING in intensity and destructive force........like the recent hurricane Ian, which we are all familiar with.

These and other facts have led most scientists to believe that man's activities are causing the recent warming of the earth........to the scientists, this is known as SETTLED SCIENCE. And they have been warning about this for over 40 years and the average person WON'T believe them. Maybe in 2050 when Miami is underwater and fish are swimming in underwater condos...................it will be too obvious to not be believed !

Been reading lately that hurricanes are not increasing in intensity and destructive force.

[golfing eagles]

Well, most of the world's scientists believe in global warming. The last 8 years are the globally warmest on recorded weather history - 150years. The world's coral reefs are dying and covered in algae due to overfishing by Chinese mega-fishing fleets. Which even sail with a giant fish processing plant about as big as a military carrier. They over-fish one area of the ocean and when there is nothing left but an empty ocean, they move around the globe. China isn't the only country overfishing. (this can easily be checked with the Google machine) This is an example of humans making Global Warming worse.

The pipeline carrying natural gas from Russia to Europe has been sabotaged leaving 4 holes in the pipe. This caused a great quantity of natural gas to erupt and flow into the upper atmosphere and likely causing greater planetary warming. Because of all these factors, most scientists predict increased warming for the next 30 years. This is another example of humans adding to Global Warming.

All over the world glaciers are melting and ending up in the sea. This makes the oceans rise by MEASURABLE amounts. Scientists have been making sea measurements for many years and are SICKENED by the rapid rate of ocean rise in the last few years. The US Navy is making plans for relocating or modifying all their bases on the east coast because of expected high water problems by 2050 (that can also be easily checked on Google) Oh and did I mention that hurricanes are INCREASING in intensity and destructive force........like the recent hurricane Ian, which we are all familiar with.

These and other facts have led most scientists to believe that man's activities are causing the recent warming of the earth........to the scientists, this is known as SETTLED SCIENCE. And they have been warning about this for over 40 years and the average person WON'T believe them. Maybe in 2050 when Miami is underwater and fish are swimming in underwater condos...................it will be too obvious to not be believed !

Now that's a hoot! 40 years ago those climate experts were warning us of an impending ICE AGE, not global warming. Apparently that science is nowhere near as "settled" as one might think.

Petula Clark had a hit song in the 60's---"Don't Sleep in the Subway". The applicable lyrics are "I've heard it all a million times before"

The cited posts and others like it have been repeated many times on this thread. But it was nonsense the first time it was posted. It was nonsense the 20th time and is nonsense now. If it gets repeated another 50 times it will still be nonsense. Repeating misinformation 1,000 times doesn't make it true. I forget if it was Goebbels or Hitler that stated "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it"

Meanwhile, I, among others, have posted the accurate factual information several times. There is no reason to repeat it again since the truly indoctrinated into the climate change cult will need a professional deprogrammer to return to reality.

[JMintzer]

But what happens when someone invents a new technology that will replace EV's? Fusions day is coming.

https://j.gifs.com/mLPLOa.gif

[tvbound]

The sky is not falling, but the earth is warming and the actions of 8 billion humans with gigantic earth movers, coal and oil fired factories, wanton destruction of natural habitat is helping to speed up the process. When a few termites access a large structure with a normal lifespan, their activities and population increases hasten the demise of that structure. The termites can't see what they are doing and wouldn't care if they could. But humans are smarter than termites, still, some can't (or won't) see or acknowledge the big picture.
My wife and I have no kids or grand kids, and may have 20 years left, so we needn't care about human kind beyond that. But, we do. We care about our species, our planet, our country, our home. As far as "causes" go, I have two, one large cause "protect earth and keep her healthy'. That is for my fellow humans. My second and small cause is, " save the chocolate mousse". That one is for me. 🍰
😌🙏Peace



"My wife and I have no kids or grand kids, and may have 20 years left, so we needn't care about human kind beyond that. But, we do. We care about our species, our planet, our country, our home."



While obviously in the minority of posters in this thread, you are not alone in the world in being decent human beings and caring about our planet and others - and not just yourselves.

Thank you and may you have another 30+ wonderful years.

[JMintzer]

Well, most of the world's scientists believe in global warming. The last 8 years are the globally warmest on recorded weather history - 150years. The world's coral reefs are dying and covered in algae due to overfishing by Chinese mega-fishing fleets. Which even sail with a giant fish processing plant about as big as a military carrier. They over-fish one area of the ocean and when there is nothing left but an empty ocean, they move around the globe. China isn't the only country overfishing. (this can easily be checked with the Google machine) This is an example of humans making Global Warming worse.

The pipeline carrying natural gas from Russia to Europe has been sabotaged leaving 4 holes in the pipe. This caused a great quantity of natural gas to erupt and flow into the upper atmosphere and likely causing greater planetary warming. Because of all these factors, most scientists predict increased warming for the next 30 years. This is another example of humans adding to Global Warming.

All over the world glaciers are melting and ending up in the sea. This makes the oceans rise by MEASURABLE amounts. Scientists have been making sea measurements for many years and are SICKENED by the rapid rate of ocean rise in the last few years. The US Navy is making plans for relocating or modifying all their bases on the east coast because of expected high water problems by 2050 (that can also be easily checked on Google) Oh and did I mention that hurricanes are INCREASING in intensity and destructive force........like the recent hurricane Ian, which we are all familiar with.

These and other facts have led most scientists to believe that man's activities are causing the recent warming of the earth........to the scientists, this is known as SETTLED SCIENCE. And they have been warning about this for over 40 years and the average person WON'T believe them. Maybe in 2050 when Miami is underwater and fish are swimming in underwater condos...................it will be too obvious to not be believed !

No way! I hadn't heard any of this before! This is all news to me...

Someone should make sure everyone reads this over and over and over again...

[JMintzer]

Most electricity in the US is generated by natural gas because it is the most clean-burning fuel. It is clean enough to be burned in people's kitchens. China burns a lot of coal to produce electricity because they are so overpopulated. They would prefer NOT to because it produces great air pollution.

Yes, that is why this stat exists...

"China is leading the world in new coal power plants, building more than three times as much new coal power capacity as all other countries in the world combined in 2020. "

[fdpaq0580]

Go ahead and spend your OWN money on this hype, not mine. Scientists disagree with each other all the time, as much as some agree. The Earth had climate change before we existed and will continue to do so without any assistance with us. We can't stop it. Like I said before, we contribute to air pollution but we don't change the weather. So funny that those that claim to be soooo intelligent have a tendency to believe what other folks tell them, just because of paper credentials. We don't raise or lower the oceans. If you wish to argue about man's contribution to air pollution, I'm with you. If you think you are powerful enough to stop the rotation of the Earth or move it's track away from the Sun to cool it, your hubris is humorous. As it was in the beginning Climate change has always been and always will be, Amen.

"Just because of paper credentials". So, you never believe doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists of any kind because they all have paper credentials?
We don't raise or lower the oceans any more then you raise or lower the electric windows of your car. Our actions affect climate change which raise or lower the oceans. You assist the raising or lowering of your windows by pushing the button which activates an electric motor that raises the window.
"You think you are powerful enough to stop the rotation of the Earth". Rotation of the planet, axis tilt, orbital track are all things that could affect climate change, but they are not the only things and they are not the current subject being under discussion. The subject is the affects of unhealthy ecosystems of our planet that are contributing to the speeding up of climate change. And, No, I am not strong enough. But, with the 8 billion other humans with all their industry and destruction and poisoning of our oceans, forests and air, we are having an impact. And it ain't good.

P.S., Don't want your money. Just want you to be aware of this situation so you will understand when others begin trying to repair the damage. No need to panic.


YET.

[fdpaq0580]

No way! I hadn't heard any of this before! This is all news to me...

Someone should make sure everyone reads this over and over and over again...

So very sorry you were never notified. Glad you are in the loop now. And, as you so wisely recommend, we will make sure everyone reads this over and over.

👧👴👵👲👮👸👼 Have a nice day and please come back again.

[jimjamuser]

No way! I hadn't heard any of this before! This is all news to me...

Someone should make sure everyone reads this over and over and over again...
Seriously, 2 google clicks will get you to the information about the US Navy getting prepared for ocean rise for their low-lying Naval bases along the eastern seaboard.
........And the Russian gas pipes to Europe have been all over the TV news for the LAST WEEK.
.........And the Chinese GIANT fishing fleets have ANGERED countries in South America and worldwide. The UN is worried about it. It ABSOLUTELY could be found with a little research on Google.
.........I mean seriously.....it's practically common knowledge!

[jimjamuser]

"Just because of paper credentials". So, you never believe doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists of any kind because they all have paper credentials?
We don't raise or lower the oceans any more then you raise or lower the electric windows of your car. Our actions affect climate change which raise or lower the oceans. You assist the raising or lowering of your windows by pushing the button which activates an electric motor that raises the window.
"You think you are powerful enough to stop the rotation of the Earth". Rotation of the planet, axis tilt, orbital track are all things that could affect climate change, but they are not the only things and they are not the current subject being under discussion. The subject is the affects of unhealthy ecosystems of our planet that are contributing to the speeding up of climate change. And, No, I am not strong enough. But, with the 8 billion other humans with all their industry and destruction and poisoning of our oceans, forests and air, we are having an impact. And it ain't good.

P.S., Don't want your money. Just want you to be aware of this situation so you will understand when others begin trying to repair the damage. No need to panic.


YET.
That was an excellent post and I hope that some forum readers are able to take it in with an open mind. I can see the points about ice ages and earth changes over millions of years. But, I can't see how that in ANY WAY negates the fact that we are dealing today with RECENT changes of warming caused by mankind (and in this case man -cruel to itself) Scientists measure temperatures at various points around the planet. And from those measurements, The FACT has emerged that the last 8 years are the warmest in weather recorded history.

I can't ignore that fact and I am confused as to how that is controversial. And I have pointed out many, many other issues.

[golfing eagles]

That was an excellent post and I hope that some forum readers are able to take it in with an open mind. I can see the points about ice ages and earth changes over millions of years. But, I can't see how that in ANY WAY negates the fact that we are dealing today with RECENT changes of warming caused by mankind (and in this case man -cruel to itself) Scientists measure temperatures at various points around the planet. And from those measurements, The FACT has emerged that the last 8 years are the warmest in weather recorded history.

I can't ignore that fact and I am confused as to how that is controversial. And I have pointed out many, many other issues.

And so the mutual admiration division of the International Tooth Fairy Club rolls on.......

[Stu from NYC]

And so the mutual admiration division of the International Tooth Fairy Club rolls on.......

When you join do they put more money under your pillow when you lose a tooth?

Asking for a friend.

[Hardlyworking]

Why is it that the climate doomsayers always want the other side to have an open mind but refuse to open their own minds? Just curious.