Climate Change

What is your opinion of Climate Change?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#76
#76
Vols_14 said:
Richard Lindzen. I have no place to agree or disagree with him. I could just as easily cite NASA and go on about how climate change is not only real but blatantly obvious. But I do think that this issue needs to be debated amongst scientists, not politicians. IMO.
Click to expand...

Politicians control the scientists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#78
#78
Vols_14 said:
Richard Lindzen. I have no place to agree or disagree with him. I could just as easily cite NASA and go on about how climate change is not only real but blatantly obvious. But I do think that this issue needs to be debated amongst scientists, not politicians. IMO.
Click to expand...

Well I agree, but the vast majority of scientists would disagree with the scientist you quoted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#81
#81
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#82
#82
MercyPercy said:
I know you're into a lot of conspiracy stuff, but it's absurd to think 97% of the world's scientists are being paid off to lie about humanity's affect of climate change.
Click to expand...

Its not conspiracy stuff mercy. What I believe to be absurd is thinking that funding can't be curtailed to get a specific result. If I set the parameters to your research, I'm likely to get the outcome I want.

I've seen it done on government contracts on things as simple as mowing state parks. If I set the guidelines, then I already know what the end result is.

This isn't that hard to comprehend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#83
#83
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#85
#85
Also it's pretty naïve to believe that the top scientists in the world wouldn't love to prove that climate change isn't real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#86
#86
Obsessed said:
Its not conspiracy stuff mercy. What I believe to be absurd is thinking that funding can't be curtailed to get a specific result. If I set the parameters to your research, I'm likely to get the outcome I want.

I've seen it done on government contracts on things as simple as mowing state parks. If I set the guidelines, then I already know what the end result is.

This isn't that hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

I understand that particular entities, including our government, are pushing for alternative energy not out of altruism but out of self interest.

The science is still there. It should be easy to disprove by anyone willing to do the work. It is absurd to believe that many scientists are manipulated in such a way if the science behind the claims was not sound.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#88
#88
MercyPercy said:
I know you're into a lot of conspiracy stuff, but it's absurd to think 97% of the world's scientists are being paid off to lie about humanity's affect of climate change.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some proof that 97% of the worlds scientists agree on GW. Who are these scientists and what are their qualifications?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#90
#90
MercyPercy said:
I believe Bart just posted that information.
Click to expand...

Basically 97% of the published work agrees.

We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
Click to expand...

So in reality the "97% of scientists" claim is just as sketchy as saying man man global warming is a fact.

Where the GW alarmist lose me is that none of them want to discuss an alternative, the earth just might be warming naturally as it has many time throughout millennia. All they want to discuss is slowing it or stopping it, let me break it to you, we can't! If the Bart's of the world want to garner my attention they should be talking about mitigation and how do we cope. Not trying to make my life more expensive. The GW movement in reality is nothing more than another attempt at weakening our economic might and wealth distribution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#91
#91
volfox72 said:
I usually keep my political views to myself, but this one seems too important to not post. I'm no climate scientist, but I've read around 97% of climate scientist agree the world is warming and it is caused by humans. 2015 was the warmest year on record for the globe as a whole, 2016 is on pace to be even warmer. The greenhouse effect, and specifically carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels seems to be the primary cause. Sea-level rise, acidification of the ocean, shrinking of ice ranges in the poles, and record warmth across the globe are all evidence of this.

Some anecdotal evidence, Knoxville's average high in april is 71 degrees, and we've been in the mid 80s for a while now, and that warmth is projected to continue for the next week.

What is everyone else's opinion? I don't want to be some crazy doomsday prophet and overreact to this, but it does to be one of the biggest challenges facing the world in the future.
Click to expand...

Read the Political Forum echo chamber and you'll find that 97% will disagree with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#93
#93
volfox72 said:
2015 was the warmest year on record for the globe as a whole,
Click to expand...

just curious, what the global temperature is supposed to be? And also, if weather didn't start being recorded for certain regions until the 1850's then how can we honestly say what the global temperature was in 80 BC?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#95
#95
The planet has periods of cooling and warming, we didn't cause it, we can't stop it. We have many many more problems than worrying about if the temp increases .0001 degree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#97
#97
We need to reduce the use of fossil fuels simply because they are finite resources and the population must continue to expand. Climate change is real, its been going on since the planet was formed. To say we know the reason or to think we can change it is like 2 fleas talking about who owns the dog. Climate change is the least of our problems. The increased populations are poisoning the planets natural resources, rivers, lakes, oceans, air pollution all killing off the birds, fish and animal species not to mention ourselves with the polluted air. The race is now on for man between technology and extinction. You can switch to alternative energy sources, create fertilizers to grow more food, stop air pollution/water pollution, but to think we can control the climate is ridiculous. We need to keep our eye on the ball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#98
#98
Persian Vol said:
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: How Can We Tell Past Temperatures?
Click to expand...

first, they are talking about climates for certain regions where dinosaurs lived, but this does not talk about an overall "global" climate. Who determines what this overall global temperature or climate should be?

Secondly.... "the actual data that paleoceanographers have measured. Initial experiments have focused upon the large climate changes that occurred during the melting of the ice sheets between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago. The closer the modeled changes match those seen in the sediments, the greater the confidence we have in the realism of our models. "

so models models models. They are using models to test possible climate changes that occured 10,000 years ago? That's a lot of faith.

"..we may be better able to estimate the probability of its recurrence as a possible consequence of continued global warming..."

Aka, we have no idea what will happen if the earth warms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#99
#99
Biopsyman said:
Don't you think the earth would have exploded in rising temperature when the industrial revolution hit and the world went from farming to manufacturing.. That certinly would have seen a spike right..... as that must have been a real jolt to the envirorment over that time span... No rise in temp occured
Click to expand...

Industrial revolution pollution index was small potatoes compared to the current torrent of toxic wastes poured into the environment.

For charting sake lets say the years of the Industrial Revolution were from 1800 to 1850. It actually started and ended a little earlier and later depending on who's writing the history. But they give mumbers on convenient dates I'll use.

World population
1800 was near 1 billion
1850 was near 1 billion 200 million. Only 200 million increase.

The industrial revolution's main environmental impact was only in Great Britan, the United States and some of the Western European countries. Yes, industrial expansion continued at an ever increasing rate, but we're only considering the IR proper. So the total fraction of the worlds population who benefitted from industrialization by consumerism and thus increased polution was much smaller. But lets say it was half. Six hundred million.
600,000,000 polluters.

Current world population is near seven billion four hundred million.
7,400,000,000. An order of magnitude 12 1/3 times greater, and the polution stream enters the atmosphere from all over the habitable globe.

Whether or not climate change is the most adverse result of human toxic wastes is of little concern if, in the end, we have **** our nest with so great a load, the earth can no longer clean itself, and so we make the one and only home for mankind no longer livable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#100
#100
hog88 said:
Basically 97% of the published work agrees.



So in reality the "97% of scientists" claim is just as sketchy as saying man man global warming is a fact.

Where the GW alarmist lose me is that none of them want to discuss an alternative, the earth just might be warming naturally as it has many time throughout millennia. All they want to discuss is slowing it or stopping it, let me break it to you, we can't! If the Bart's of the world want to garner my attention they should be talking about mitigation and how do we cope. Not trying to make my life more expensive. The GW movement in reality is nothing more than another attempt at weakening our economic might and wealth distribution.
Click to expand...

Except that "alternative" you speak of, that the earth is just warming naturally, has been addressed ad nauseam by the same scientists that people seem to believe haven't come to the same consensus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top