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?

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...”

:undecided:

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[QUOTE=MartyW;2144872]

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.

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.

[QUOTE]
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.

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).

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.

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 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.

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