Global Warming
#1
Very informative website.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warmi...r-manmade/
Reply
#2
Funded by Exxon. What a surprise . . .
Reply
#3
(11-01-2014, 02:16 PM)MarkM Wrote: Funded by Exxon. What a surprise . . .

Yea, really. Hey Exxon couldn't have a horse in this race could they? Smiling

And still...
I'm a card carrying liberal tax and spend progressive commie who has drunk the Kool Aid but still have some questions about this. Forget, just for a moment, all the good science out there.
But consider that since the industrial revolution we have been spewing more and more carbon into the air. We know that CO2 messes with our "system" and even high school science can prove that. So, yeah, "man" has made things worse.

But, we also know that climate changes have occurred long before the industrial revolution or even before a populated planet. We know for instance that volcanoes mess with global air stuff a whole lot.

So, don't you think we have to moderate our view to some degree about just how much of this danger is "man made"? I mean we KNOW, we spit tons of carbon into the air, and reducing that is bound to make a huge difference.

But...will it make THE difference?

Maybe we should be spending our science money on learning how to live with extreme climate change and forget trying to live without using carbon fuels. (How many of us have given up our cars?)

Whatever. What I don't know about this stuff is everything. I think I might be in good company.
Reply
#4
(11-01-2014, 05:44 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-01-2014, 02:16 PM)MarkM Wrote: Funded by Exxon. What a surprise . . .

Yea, really. Hey Exxon couldn't have a horse in this race could they? Smiling

And still...
I'm a card carrying liberal tax and spend progressive commie who has drunk the Kool Aid but still have some questions about this. Forget, just for a moment, all the good science out there.
But consider that since the industrial revolution we have been spewing more and more carbon into the air. We know that CO2 messes with our "system" and even high school science can prove that. So, yeah, "man" has made things worse.

But, we also know that climate changes have occurred long before the industrial revolution or even before a populated planet. We know for instance that volcanoes mess with global air stuff a whole lot.

So, don't you think we have to moderate our view to some degree about just how much of this danger is "man made"? I mean we KNOW, we spit tons of carbon into the air, and reducing that is bound to make a huge difference.

But...will it make THE difference?

Maybe we should be spending our science money on learning how to live with extreme climate change and forget trying to live without using carbon fuels. (How many of us have given up our cars?)

Whatever. What I don't know about this stuff is everything. I think I might be in good company.

Or heat for your cave, lighting , computers, shopping in stores ?
Reply
#5
(11-01-2014, 06:15 PM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-01-2014, 05:44 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-01-2014, 02:16 PM)MarkM Wrote: Funded by Exxon. What a surprise . . .

Yea, really. Hey Exxon couldn't have a horse in this race could they? Smiling

And still...
I'm a card carrying liberal tax and spend progressive commie who has drunk the Kool Aid but still have some questions about this. Forget, just for a moment, all the good science out there.
But consider that since the industrial revolution we have been spewing more and more carbon into the air. We know that CO2 messes with our "system" and even high school science can prove that. So, yeah, "man" has made things worse.

But, we also know that climate changes have occurred long before the industrial revolution or even before a populated planet. We know for instance that volcanoes mess with global air stuff a whole lot.

So, don't you think we have to moderate our view to some degree about just how much of this danger is "man made"? I mean we KNOW, we spit tons of carbon into the air, and reducing that is bound to make a huge difference.

But...will it make THE difference?

Maybe we should be spending our science money on learning how to live with extreme climate change and forget trying to live without using carbon fuels. (How many of us have given up our cars?)

Whatever. What I don't know about this stuff is everything. I think I might be in good company.

Or heat for your cave, lighting , computers, shopping in stores ?

Yep. All that.
And now there are over 7 BILLION of us and we all want that stuff. Gotta make a difference.
Still...an ALL man made problem? Maybe. Maybe not.
Reply
#6
Good discussion, Wonky. Some key points.

While the planet is currently home to seven billion humans, there will be ten billion of us before that number begins to stabilize at mid-century. All of those people will have energy needs and despite our conservation efforts we will need to triple our energy production in order to meet planetary demand. That's a heavy lift.

Furthermore, while climate change has occurred often in earth's 4.5 billion year life, it has never happened this fast. It's nearly instantaneous on a geological scale. Totally unprecedented without some kind of catastrophic event. That climate change is a result of the burning of fossil fuels by people is not so just because 97% of climate scientists think so, but because there's really no other rational explanation.

But you are correct to posit our way forward should be motivated at this point by adaptation to our changing environment as opposed to preventing those changes from happening. Too late for that. Humans are pretty clever so maybe we'll figure out a way around this conundrum, but it's more likely that many of us won't make it.

The most interesting theory I've heard is that democracies like the US are at a disadvantage in adapting to the changing environment. Too slow, too clunky, too difficult to forgo short term gains for long terms benefits. Autocracies like China on the other hand have a decided advantage. Those countries can unilaterally and without debate make the tough decisions necessary for survival. They are much more likely to survive intact in the next three hundred years or so when humans are pressed for essential resources.

Kinda makes you want to have another drink and watch TV.
Reply
#7
(11-01-2014, 02:16 PM)MarkM Wrote: Funded by Exxon. What a surprise . . .

Whatchyoo talking about? Big Oil has no incentive to suppress energy alternatives or environmental practices? We know Capitalist have the most pristine and unblemished ethics.
Reply
#8
(11-01-2014, 08:22 PM)MarkM Wrote: Good discussion, Wonky. Some key points.

While the planet is currently home to seven billion humans, there will be ten billion of us before that number begins to stabilize at mid-century. All of those people will have energy needs and despite our conservation efforts we will need to triple our energy production in order to meet planetary demand. That's a heavy lift.

Furthermore, while climate change has occurred often in earth's 4.5 billion year life, it has never happened this fast. It's nearly instantaneous on a geological scale. Totally unprecedented without some kind of catastrophic event. That climate change is a result of the burning of fossil fuels by people is not so just because 97% of climate scientists think so, but because there's really no other rational explanation.

But you are correct to posit our way forward should be motivated at this point by adaptation to our changing environment as opposed to preventing those changes from happening. Too late for that. Humans are pretty clever so maybe we'll figure out a way around this conundrum, but it's more likely that many of us won't make it.

The most interesting theory I've heard is that democracies like the US are at a disadvantage in adapting to the changing environment. Too slow, too clunky, too difficult to forgo short term gains for long terms benefits. Autocracies like China on the other hand have a decided advantage. Those countries can unilaterally and without debate make the tough decisions necessary for survival. They are much more likely to survive intact in the next three hundred years or so when humans are pressed for essential resources.

Kinda makes you want to have another drink and watch TV.

Funny how things change. My choices now are more coffee and simple trash fiction in which to escape.
And funny (not ha ha) too, that todays NYT has a article that speaks to this very issue...in scary kind of terms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/...hange.html

(I hope that link works. I subscribe, and once before when I posted a link TVg told me it opens only to those who subscribe...will find out after the post I guess)

Whatever, your comments (Mark) that this stuff is happening a lot faster than anyone expected is the most chilling factor in all this. Very little time to get ready. And of course the poor will pay first, as the piece in the Times reports.

Caused by man or not, it looks for all the world like it's bearing down on us and we best get ready to suck it up and deal with it.

I'm and old guy and don't worry that much about my own condition, but I have grandkids that I do worry about. And of course those here who are younger....kids like Clete and Tia. Big Grin
Reply
#9
(11-02-2014, 08:20 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-01-2014, 08:22 PM)MarkM Wrote: Good discussion, Wonky. Some key points.

While the planet is currently home to seven billion humans, there will be ten billion of us before that number begins to stabilize at mid-century. All of those people will have energy needs and despite our conservation efforts we will need to triple our energy production in order to meet planetary demand. That's a heavy lift.

Furthermore, while climate change has occurred often in earth's 4.5 billion year life, it has never happened this fast. It's nearly instantaneous on a geological scale. Totally unprecedented without some kind of catastrophic event. That climate change is a result of the burning of fossil fuels by people is not so just because 97% of climate scientists think so, but because there's really no other rational explanation.

But you are correct to posit our way forward should be motivated at this point by adaptation to our changing environment as opposed to preventing those changes from happening. Too late for that. Humans are pretty clever so maybe we'll figure out a way around this conundrum, but it's more likely that many of us won't make it.

The most interesting theory I've heard is that democracies like the US are at a disadvantage in adapting to the changing environment. Too slow, too clunky, too difficult to forgo short term gains for long terms benefits. Autocracies like China on the other hand have a decided advantage. Those countries can unilaterally and without debate make the tough decisions necessary for survival. They are much more likely to survive intact in the next three hundred years or so when humans are pressed for essential resources.

Kinda makes you want to have another drink and watch TV.

Funny how things change. My choices now are more coffee and simple trash fiction in which to escape.
And funny (not ha ha) too, that todays NYT has a article that speaks to this very issue...in scary kind of terms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/...hange.html

(I hope that link works. I subscribe, and once before when I posted a link TVg told me it opens only to those who subscribe...will find out after the post I guess)

Whatever, your comments (Mark) that this stuff is happening a lot faster than anyone expected is the most chilling factor in all this. Very little time to get ready. And of course the poor will pay first, as the piece in the Times reports.

Caused by man or not, it looks for all the world like it's bearing down on us and we best get ready to suck it up and deal with it.

I'm and old guy and don't worry that much about my own condition, but I have grandkids that I do worry about. And of course those here who are younger....kids like Clete and Tia. Big Grin

The poor being affected first is a great worry, our own. Those who would be classified as working poor. They make enough to get by now . The increase in energy costs could be devastating . We as a country are not accustomed to no heat, lights etc. Seems like a recipe for tyranny by the wealthy(left or right leaning).

Those in power are more interested in their own well being and status than that of their constituents .
Reply
#10
(11-02-2014, 11:10 AM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 08:20 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-01-2014, 08:22 PM)MarkM Wrote: Good discussion, Wonky. Some key points.

While the planet is currently home to seven billion humans, there will be ten billion of us before that number begins to stabilize at mid-century. All of those people will have energy needs and despite our conservation efforts we will need to triple our energy production in order to meet planetary demand. That's a heavy lift.

Furthermore, while climate change has occurred often in earth's 4.5 billion year life, it has never happened this fast. It's nearly instantaneous on a geological scale. Totally unprecedented without some kind of catastrophic event. That climate change is a result of the burning of fossil fuels by people is not so just because 97% of climate scientists think so, but because there's really no other rational explanation.

But you are correct to posit our way forward should be motivated at this point by adaptation to our changing environment as opposed to preventing those changes from happening. Too late for that. Humans are pretty clever so maybe we'll figure out a way around this conundrum, but it's more likely that many of us won't make it.

The most interesting theory I've heard is that democracies like the US are at a disadvantage in adapting to the changing environment. Too slow, too clunky, too difficult to forgo short term gains for long terms benefits. Autocracies like China on the other hand have a decided advantage. Those countries can unilaterally and without debate make the tough decisions necessary for survival. They are much more likely to survive intact in the next three hundred years or so when humans are pressed for essential resources.

Kinda makes you want to have another drink and watch TV.

Funny how things change. My choices now are more coffee and simple trash fiction in which to escape.
And funny (not ha ha) too, that todays NYT has a article that speaks to this very issue...in scary kind of terms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/...hange.html

(I hope that link works. I subscribe, and once before when I posted a link TVg told me it opens only to those who subscribe...will find out after the post I guess)

Whatever, your comments (Mark) that this stuff is happening a lot faster than anyone expected is the most chilling factor in all this. Very little time to get ready. And of course the poor will pay first, as the piece in the Times reports.

Caused by man or not, it looks for all the world like it's bearing down on us and we best get ready to suck it up and deal with it.

I'm and old guy and don't worry that much about my own condition, but I have grandkids that I do worry about. And of course those here who are younger....kids like Clete and Tia. Big Grin

The poor being affected first is a great worry, our own. Those who would be classified as working poor. They make enough to get by now . The increase in energy costs could be devastating . We as a country are not accustomed to no heat, lights etc. Seems like a recipe for tyranny by the wealthy(left or right leaning).

Those in power are more interested in their own well being and status than that of their constituents .

Boy Howdy! (Thanks Clone)

I think you are right on spot with that.
The poor will come breaking down doors.
I'm only soon-to-be poor and my door is not all that strong.
But as you say, The Koch brothers (et al) will have steel doors six feet thick and a well armed security force of well fed troops of their own.

Gonna be messy.

And before the fact we are bound to see a movie staring Brad Pitt showing us how it will happen. Won't matter....it will still happen. Make it happen sooner. Vote for all Republicans who deny it's a problem.

Thanks Rush Limbaugh and all the low IQ pundits who think science is reduced to 10-40 weight motor oil. You too have helped doom us.

Eat, drink, and be Merry, for tomorrow....
Reply
#11
(11-02-2014, 02:10 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 11:10 AM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 08:20 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-01-2014, 08:22 PM)MarkM Wrote: Good discussion, Wonky. Some key points.

While the planet is currently home to seven billion humans, there will be ten billion of us before that number begins to stabilize at mid-century. All of those people will have energy needs and despite our conservation efforts we will need to triple our energy production in order to meet planetary demand. That's a heavy lift.

Furthermore, while climate change has occurred often in earth's 4.5 billion year life, it has never happened this fast. It's nearly instantaneous on a geological scale. Totally unprecedented without some kind of catastrophic event. That climate change is a result of the burning of fossil fuels by people is not so just because 97% of climate scientists think so, but because there's really no other rational explanation.

But you are correct to posit our way forward should be motivated at this point by adaptation to our changing environment as opposed to preventing those changes from happening. Too late for that. Humans are pretty clever so maybe we'll figure out a way around this conundrum, but it's more likely that many of us won't make it.

The most interesting theory I've heard is that democracies like the US are at a disadvantage in adapting to the changing environment. Too slow, too clunky, too difficult to forgo short term gains for long terms benefits. Autocracies like China on the other hand have a decided advantage. Those countries can unilaterally and without debate make the tough decisions necessary for survival. They are much more likely to survive intact in the next three hundred years or so when humans are pressed for essential resources.

Kinda makes you want to have another drink and watch TV.

Funny how things change. My choices now are more coffee and simple trash fiction in which to escape.
And funny (not ha ha) too, that todays NYT has a article that speaks to this very issue...in scary kind of terms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/...hange.html

(I hope that link works. I subscribe, and once before when I posted a link TVg told me it opens only to those who subscribe...will find out after the post I guess)

Whatever, your comments (Mark) that this stuff is happening a lot faster than anyone expected is the most chilling factor in all this. Very little time to get ready. And of course the poor will pay first, as the piece in the Times reports.

Caused by man or not, it looks for all the world like it's bearing down on us and we best get ready to suck it up and deal with it.

I'm and old guy and don't worry that much about my own condition, but I have grandkids that I do worry about. And of course those here who are younger....kids like Clete and Tia. Big Grin

The poor being affected first is a great worry, our own. Those who would be classified as working poor. They make enough to get by now . The increase in energy costs could be devastating . We as a country are not accustomed to no heat, lights etc. Seems like a recipe for tyranny by the wealthy(left or right leaning).

Those in power are more interested in their own well being and status than that of their constituents .

Boy Howdy! (Thanks Clone)

I think you are right on spot with that.
The poor will come breaking down doors.
I'm only soon-to-be poor and my door is not all that strong.
But as you say, The Koch brothers (et al) will have steel doors six feet thick and a well armed security force of well fed troops of their own.

Gonna be messy.

And before the fact we are bound to see a movie staring Brad Pitt showing us how it will happen. Won't matter....it will still happen. Make it happen sooner. Vote for all Republicans who deny it's a problem.

Thanks Rush Limbaugh and all the low IQ pundits who think science is reduced to 10-40 weight motor oil. You too have helped doom us.

Eat, drink, and be Merry, for tomorrow....

LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing Thank you Wonky!! You managed to pack in so much partisan propoganda into one post, that I almost busted a gut. You are the Master of Bullshit.
Reply
#12
(11-02-2014, 05:47 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 02:10 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 11:10 AM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 08:20 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-01-2014, 08:22 PM)MarkM Wrote: Good discussion, Wonky. Some key points.

While the planet is currently home to seven billion humans, there will be ten billion of us before that number begins to stabilize at mid-century. All of those people will have energy needs and despite our conservation efforts we will need to triple our energy production in order to meet planetary demand. That's a heavy lift.

Furthermore, while climate change has occurred often in earth's 4.5 billion year life, it has never happened this fast. It's nearly instantaneous on a geological scale. Totally unprecedented without some kind of catastrophic event. That climate change is a result of the burning of fossil fuels by people is not so just because 97% of climate scientists think so, but because there's really no other rational explanation.

But you are correct to posit our way forward should be motivated at this point by adaptation to our changing environment as opposed to preventing those changes from happening. Too late for that. Humans are pretty clever so maybe we'll figure out a way around this conundrum, but it's more likely that many of us won't make it.

The most interesting theory I've heard is that democracies like the US are at a disadvantage in adapting to the changing environment. Too slow, too clunky, too difficult to forgo short term gains for long terms benefits. Autocracies like China on the other hand have a decided advantage. Those countries can unilaterally and without debate make the tough decisions necessary for survival. They are much more likely to survive intact in the next three hundred years or so when humans are pressed for essential resources.

Kinda makes you want to have another drink and watch TV.

Funny how things change. My choices now are more coffee and simple trash fiction in which to escape.
And funny (not ha ha) too, that todays NYT has a article that speaks to this very issue...in scary kind of terms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/...hange.html

(I hope that link works. I subscribe, and once before when I posted a link TVg told me it opens only to those who subscribe...will find out after the post I guess)

Whatever, your comments (Mark) that this stuff is happening a lot faster than anyone expected is the most chilling factor in all this. Very little time to get ready. And of course the poor will pay first, as the piece in the Times reports.

Caused by man or not, it looks for all the world like it's bearing down on us and we best get ready to suck it up and deal with it.

I'm and old guy and don't worry that much about my own condition, but I have grandkids that I do worry about. And of course those here who are younger....kids like Clete and Tia. Big Grin

The poor being affected first is a great worry, our own. Those who would be classified as working poor. They make enough to get by now . The increase in energy costs could be devastating . We as a country are not accustomed to no heat, lights etc. Seems like a recipe for tyranny by the wealthy(left or right leaning).

Those in power are more interested in their own well being and status than that of their constituents .

Boy Howdy! (Thanks Clone)

I think you are right on spot with that.
The poor will come breaking down doors.
I'm only soon-to-be poor and my door is not all that strong.
But as you say, The Koch brothers (et al) will have steel doors six feet thick and a well armed security force of well fed troops of their own.

Gonna be messy.

And before the fact we are bound to see a movie staring Brad Pitt showing us how it will happen. Won't matter....it will still happen. Make it happen sooner. Vote for all Republicans who deny it's a problem.

Thanks Rush Limbaugh and all the low IQ pundits who think science is reduced to 10-40 weight motor oil. You too have helped doom us.

Eat, drink, and be Merry, for tomorrow.... on

LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing Thank you Wonky!! You managed to pack in so much partisan propoganda into one post, that I almost busted a gut. You are the Master of Bullshit.

Wow, Are the leftist on this board incapable of carrying a conversation without using the idiot remarks against an opposing view ? The gospel that you preach could be derived from tainted data.

Ask the Fourth dynasty Egyptians about climate change. To blindly follow the political leaders dooms us too. There are adaptations that can be made . As a race humans will adapt. As a country of laws I feel we are doomed .
Reply
#13
(11-02-2014, 07:39 PM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 05:47 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 02:10 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 11:10 AM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 08:20 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: Funny how things change. My choices now are more coffee and simple trash fiction in which to escape.
And funny (not ha ha) too, that todays NYT has a article that speaks to this very issue...in scary kind of terms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/...hange.html

(I hope that link works. I subscribe, and once before when I posted a link TVg told me it opens only to those who subscribe...will find out after the post I guess)

Whatever, your comments (Mark) that this stuff is happening a lot faster than anyone expected is the most chilling factor in all this. Very little time to get ready. And of course the poor will pay first, as the piece in the Times reports.

Caused by man or not, it looks for all the world like it's bearing down on us and we best get ready to suck it up and deal with it.

I'm and old guy and don't worry that much about my own condition, but I have grandkids that I do worry about. And of course those here who are younger....kids like Clete and Tia. Big Grin

The poor being affected first is a great worry, our own. Those who would be classified as working poor. They make enough to get by now . The increase in energy costs could be devastating . We as a country are not accustomed to no heat, lights etc. Seems like a recipe for tyranny by the wealthy(left or right leaning).

Those in power are more interested in their own well being and status than that of their constituents .

Boy Howdy! (Thanks Clone)

I think you are right on spot with that.
The poor will come breaking down doors.
I'm only soon-to-be poor and my door is not all that strong.
But as you say, The Koch brothers (et al) will have steel doors six feet thick and a well armed security force of well fed troops of their own.

Gonna be messy.

And before the fact we are bound to see a movie staring Brad Pitt showing us how it will happen. Won't matter....it will still happen. Make it happen sooner. Vote for all Republicans who deny it's a problem.

Thanks Rush Limbaugh and all the low IQ pundits who think science is reduced to 10-40 weight motor oil. You too have helped doom us.

Eat, drink, and be Merry, for tomorrow.... on

LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing Thank you Wonky!! You managed to pack in so much partisan propoganda into one post, that I almost busted a gut. You are the Master of Bullshit.

Wow, Are the leftist on this board incapable of carrying a conversation without using the idiot remarks against an opposing view ? The gospel that you preach could be derived from tainted data.

Ask the Fourth dynasty Egyptians about climate change. To blindly follow the political leaders dooms us too. There are adaptations that can be made . As a race humans will adapt. As a country of laws I feel we are doomed .

Quote:Ask the Fourth dynasty Egyptians about climate change.

Umkay, what's their number?
Quote: As a country of laws I feel we are doomed

Why is that so common for so many righties? I didn't think YOU were a rightie. Doomed? Really? cuz messicans is sneaking in left and right?
Cuz Obanga throws a ball like a girl?
Cuz gays can get married?
Cuz so many watch and like duck Dynasty?
Cuz so many mericans is fat?
Wink
Reply
#14
Doomed cause being lied to by groups making cash hand over fist. Look at the 2012 movie. only the leaders and rich. I know it is a fictional scenario. Look at the political leaders. Nafta was good for American jobs.... Shipping them to Mexico. Bill is set for life 200k a speech. Yep average working class folks .
Reply
#15
(11-02-2014, 08:16 PM)oregon 67 Wrote: Doomed cause being lied to by groups making cash hand over fist. Look at the 2012 movie. only the leaders and rich. I know it is a fictional scenario. Look at the political leaders. Nafta was good for American jobs.... Shipping them to Mexico. Bill is set for life 200k a speech. Yep average working class folks .

What movie? Hangover two?

Quote: Nafta was good for American jobs.... Shipping them to Mexico

It's a global economy. Countries who have people willing to work for peanuts means they can sell the same items cheaper. So in that respect we are screwed anyway. Nafta is just more of the same.
Quote:Bill is set for life 200k a speech

And because of that we are doomed?Blink That's been going on forever with lots of politicians. Why do you mention Bill? as if I didn't knowRazz
Reply
#16
Do we need to review?

"Climate change", the science folks tell us, is a fact. Already we are seeing the effects.

And we know that there have been periods of climate change in the past when there were not 7 billion people on the planet.

So, is climate change "man made"? Well...

Whatever cause the climate to change before (volcanoes?) we know this much: The billions of folks on the planet now are spewing lots of carbon into the air and science tells us clearly that it causes changes in the weather, and long term, the climate. So if nothing else it ADDS to our problem!

So we don't know what caused it before. We know now that carbon fuel is a huge problem.

So, this is not a political thing. It's a science thing. But the solution will have to come from political agreement. Political agreement can happen only when reasonable intelligent people accept facts and no longer deny reality.

Science talks. Dogma walks. (Cant' believe I even said that. Embarrassed)
Reply
#17
(11-02-2014, 09:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Do we need to review?

"Climate change", the science folks tell us, is a fact. Already we are seeing the effects.

And we know that there have been periods of climate change in the past when there were not 7 billion people on the planet.

So, is climate change "man made"? Well...

Whatever cause the climate to change before (volcanoes?) we know this much: The billions of folks on the planet now are spewing lots of carbon into the air and science tells us clearly that it causes changes in the weather, and long term, the climate. So if nothing else it ADDS to our problem!

So we don't know what caused it before. We know now that carbon fuel is a huge problem.

So, this is not a political thing. It's a science thing. But the solution will have to come from political agreement. Political agreement can happen only when reasonable intelligent people accept facts and no longer deny reality.

Science talks. Dogma walks. (Cant' believe I even said that. Embarrassed)

I don't believe that the science is settled on the anthropogenic part.

The human population is at an all time high. Is it the all time high of all mammalian inhabitance ?
We knew the colocynth was extinct and witches float .
Reply
#18
(11-02-2014, 09:29 PM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 09:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Do we need to review?

"Climate change", the science folks tell us, is a fact. Already we are seeing the effects.

And we know that there have been periods of climate change in the past when there were not 7 billion people on the planet.

So, is climate change "man made"? Well...

Whatever cause the climate to change before (volcanoes?) we know this much: The billions of folks on the planet now are spewing lots of carbon into the air and science tells us clearly that it causes changes in the weather, and long term, the climate. So if nothing else it ADDS to our problem!

So we don't know what caused it before. We know now that carbon fuel is a huge problem.

So, this is not a political thing. It's a science thing. But the solution will have to come from political agreement. Political agreement can happen only when reasonable intelligent people accept facts and no longer deny reality.

Science talks. Dogma walks. (Cant' believe I even said that. Embarrassed)

I don't believe that the science is settled on the anthropogenic part.

The human population is at an all time high. Is it the all time high of all mammalian inhabitance ?
We knew the colocynth was extinct and witches float .
coelacanths The fishes.

Your right tv . It is front page news with the Clintons. 2011 figures for georgie were 110k per speech.
Reply
#19
(11-03-2014, 07:07 AM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 09:29 PM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 09:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Do we need to review?

"Climate change", the science folks tell us, is a fact. Already we are seeing the effects.

And we know that there have been periods of climate change in the past when there were not 7 billion people on the planet.

So, is climate change "man made"? Well...

Whatever cause the climate to change before (volcanoes?) we know this much: The billions of folks on the planet now are spewing lots of carbon into the air and science tells us clearly that it causes changes in the weather, and long term, the climate. So if nothing else it ADDS to our problem!

So we don't know what caused it before. We know now that carbon fuel is a huge problem.

So, this is not a political thing. It's a science thing. But the solution will have to come from political agreement. Political agreement can happen only when reasonable intelligent people accept facts and no longer deny reality.

Science talks. Dogma walks. (Cant' believe I even said that. Embarrassed)

I don't believe that the science is settled on the anthropogenic part.

The human population is at an all time high. Is it the all time high of all mammalian inhabitance ?
We knew the colocynth was extinct and witches float .
coelacanths The fishes.

Your right tv . It is front page news with the Clintons. 2011 figures for georgie were 110k per speech.

Smoke and mirrors.
Non-human mammals don't burn carbon fuel. Never did. People do.

"anthropogenic" indeed. Yes, the number of people producing CO2 does matter. If you don't believe that science is "settled" I suggest you live in a bubble.. You might well say that it's possible people burning carbon are not the ONLY problem we face, and you might even be right. But to deny the fact is to ignore a truth that matters to us all.

There was science...real science, offered in a link in a post above. I offer it here again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/...hange.html

Pick it apart. But when you do. please, in the name of good argument, try to stay on point and not drift off into who got how much for speaking fees.

We no longer stress about witches floating and we can thank science for eliminating that "truth" also. And yet, while debunking that myth we still acknowledge evil lives among us. The difference is we have used reason to define it.

There is a lot of information out there. Some good, some not so good, and our real chore is to parse it using some objective standard.

Let's assume you are a political "conservative".
Let's assume I'm a political "liberal"

It won't matter a bit when the truth of what we are CONTRIBUTING to climate change begins to degrade the quality of our lives and those who follow.

Argument is good. Only good argument is productive. Don't argue we me, argue with the scientist who are publishing the reports that alarm so many around the globe.
Reply
#20
Don't worry about the ten billion people, the CDC 'Center for Disease Creation' is working on new forms of Ebola to help with this problem of too many people.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)