How many of you believe in Climate change?

Either people blatantly deny global warming, or they use it as an excuse to overtax everything in our lives.

It’s more political than scientific these days.

 

Thank you. The earth's climate has been fluxuating throughout it's entire history since before humans were able to effect the climate.

 

He's a politician, not a climate scientist.

Politicians, journalists etc have often made exaggerated claims about global warming to try to push their agenda. That is unfortunate because it can discredit genuine climate science.



The arctic sea ice extent has its ups and downs from year to year, but the long term trend is pretty clear.

 

people sure love when scientists figure stuff out to help them. then, some (a lot of) data comes suggesting that people are wrecking earth, which now requires actual money and effort to fix... wait, where did the trust and appreciation go?

 

Yep. @Summer Adventurer's post is a good example of cherrypicking in attempt to twist the truth. It shows you that uninformed people with good intentions are just as good at spreading lies as the actual liars, if not better.

 

I think it's pretty obvious that the climate is changing. But I don't know if we can really say what the cause of that is. I think it's good to be as environmentally friendly as we can, just in case, but I don't really know for sure if humans "caused" climate change by certain actions.

I also believe in God, so it's entirely possible that this is just how He decided to make things happen. I don't know that we can really prove that we are the cause of it.

Although I will fully admit to being completely ignorant on the subject. I've never looked into the science of it. I'm just answering off of what I see and what I can think of logically.

 

I believe in Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails, and 5G and CO2 Sequestration, and the fact devil worshippers plan to lower humanity under 500,000,000 through vaccines, sharp lightings, toxic medias, feminism, communism, chemicals, gun control, immigration, wireless radiations and all of that.

PROTECT YOURSELVES.

 

Everybody on this thread all worked up over climate change should be more concerned with 5G.

 

I believe in civil engineering and railways, and 3D and SQL injection and the fact Easter worshippers plan to have dolphins take over through cunnilingus, chopsticks, windows media player, hinduism, voyeurism, memes, self-control, imagination, gravitational radiation and all that.

BE YOURSELF.

 

Forgive me, but I think part of the problem with this issue is with questions like these.

The question isn't "is climate change real?" The question is "is it something we need to treat as an emergency", and "what is the most sensible and effective way to mitigate it?"

In a closed system, increasing CO2 does increase the "greenhouse gas" effect of the atmosphere. But we don't live in a closed system. We live in a world where literally hundreds of variables influence the temperature of the earth. CO2--and to be specific, CO2 produced by man-made activity--is a tiny fraction of that.

To put it in perspective:

- Greenhouse gases only account for a fraction of the earth's actual warmth. Direct sun exposure is obviously the biggest one.
- CO2 only accounts for around 25% of the greenhouse gas effect. The rest is done by water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and other trace gases.
- of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, 97% of it occurs naturally. Only **3%** of it comes from human activity.
- of that 3% of CO2 produced by humans, the United States is only responsible for 15% of it.

That means that only 0.45% of the CO2 caused by man is produced in the United States. If the United States reduced its emissions by 100% tomorrow, the change in temperature would be so small that it couldn't even be measured over time, and whatever tiny changes might be seen couldn't be conclusively attributed to cutting our emissions. And we'd absolutely destroy our economy in the process.

There are far better ways to deal with CO2 than crushing our economy--which the private sector is making more and more efficient every year. Planting trees, for instance--trees actually consume CO2 and produce oxygen. If there's excess plant food in our atmosphere, let's make use of it (and btw--plants already make use of it on their own--plant biomass goes up considerably in environments that are rich in CO2).

Americans who are freaking out about global warming and not freaking out about our national debt need to rethink their priorities. It's like a 20-year old freaking out about his retirement while he's bleeding profusely.

 

Honestly, I might be less skeptical if the folks pushing climate change data weren't constantly getting caught screwing around with it.

 

When it comes to carbon, for all intents and purposes we do live in a closed system. Whatever happens on Earth, stays on Earth.

Ok. First of all, let's deal with the "tiny fraction" business. If you had 50 kilos of a U-235 ball and added 2 kg to it, the whole thing went boom and killed ten thousand people, I'm sure nobody would blame you if you explained that you added just 4% of the weight! Throwing around percentages can illuminate the conversation as much as it can utterly confuse it.

Second: yes, almost all of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour. But that's not an issue, in fact it's essential for our survival! If it weren't there, our asses would be freezing at -200°C.

We're digging up carbon from the ground and pump it into the atmosphere which tilts the system just a tad out of balance. But that small bit is enough to cause huge trouble.

It's easy to forget, for example, that almost everything we eat is an agricultural product. Well, what happens when an unusual heat and humidity severly harms farmers' productivity worldwide? Europe and North America will handle that somehow, we have huge capacities. But what about the poor fuckers in Africa and India? They'll drop by millions. You think I'm exaggerating? Look up Holodomor to see what famines can do.

Let's just plant trees, bro! No, it's not that easy. Yes, plants capture co2 but forests also decrease albedo, the "reflectiveness" of the planet. That's also why melting ice is so bad - it works as a mirror that sends a good portion of radiation back into space.

I agree with you that simply removing emissions is infeasible. But we need to start solving the problem and we need to realize that it's going to be a bit unpleasant. The free market extremists ought to think hard about whether sustaining their religion is worth the massive human sacrifice.

 

You're not thinking critically. When I described a closed system, I was describing what happens if you increase CO2 and literally do nothing else. But our environment and atmosphere do hundreds of other things that influence temperature, many of which influence it far more than man-made CO2.

Are you suggesting that CO2 isn't essential to our survival? Before you answer, you should probably consider that it's what we exhale, and it's what plants inhale. But I'm listening.

This is a nonsense, ridiculous analogy. First off, 2kg out of 50 is 4%. If you want to talk about how much man-made CO2 affects temperature, it wouldn't be like adding 2kg, it'd be like adding .00002kg. Secondly, you're describing an object that is brutally destructive all by itself without our help. CO2 doesn't fit that description in the least.

Try again.

Yeah, because farming is so big over there.

Look, if you were really concerned about the hundreds of millions of people living in impoverished countries, you'd support the advancement of fossil fuels in those nations. Nothing in human history has been so directly proportional to a nation's prosperity--and by extension, the prosperity of its people--than the use of fossil fuels and an environment of economic freedom.

Here, you're just confirming that your bias is toward your worldview and not toward science. There was nothing "wonderfully written" about it.

 

I do. I’m not worried about nature though. She’ll be fine. It might take her Some time but she’ll recover. The question for me is will we be here to see her recovery.

 

I say there will be a mass extinction event soon caused by are greed. With all these corporations dumping waste and destroying the landscape and the environment. Since the government is nothing more but pawns these days major corporations can buy there way out of anything with no repercussions. You would be surprised of how much oil spills and waste gets dumped under the radars that don't make the news.

It worries me a lot because I don't see us changing are ways in time and I see very bad consequences the young generation will have to deal with in the future.

That is one thing I learnt in this world it's never the generation that causes the problem that has to deal with them it is younger generation that always has to deal with the older generations screw ups.

 

Make sure to buy lots of real estate in Greenland, northern Canada and Alaska. The land’s worth will skyrocket, especially the lakeside properties.

 

@SuperFan I don't like the way you argue. A ton of red herrings and strawmen.

The meaning of a closed system is that there's nothing (in this case no carbon) going in or out. If you meant to use a different expression then you should have used it.
I've already adressed the second point - our atmosphere brings the temperature up from near absolute zero at nighttime and down from hundreds of degrees at daytime. So again - of course the effect of greenhouse gas emissions compared to that is small.
But that's completely irrelevant since the effect is still huge and you know that. A simple fact is that raising concentration of these gasses is the dumbest experiment we ever came up with.

Again, you don't comprehend. I was saying that the greenhouse effect is essential for our survival. More precisely, an exact amount of the greenhouse effect. I didn't say that carbon dioxide is useless or should be eliminated altogether (not that it is currently possible). Nice strawman.

First of all, when it comes to chain reactions, the decisive amount can be as small as you're describing. Second of all, not sure where you're getting those exact numbers. Especially when you didn't even bother to mention what do those percentages represent. The reason is, I'm guessing, is that you just don't know.

???

Citation needed. I'm not gonna make fun of you for fucking up this formulation too - "nothing has been so directly proportional"? Whatever, I know what you tried to say. But that's pulled right out of your backside as well - what about fertilizer for example? Much more important invention.
Besides, the Arabic countries which became disgustingly rich thanks to oil did so because ... there's oil on their territory, surprisingly. If, say, Ghana has no oil, the amazing profit you're promising is not going to be there.

 

Pretty rough data to contend with if you're a climate alarmist ... and from AccuWeather, no less.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...wing-cold-water-on-extreme-heat-hype/70008963

 

No, you just accuse me of red herrings and strawmen because it's easier to dismiss something as a fallacy rather than to actually contend with it. It's no different than leftists who call someone "racist" as soon as there's a disagreement about affirmative action or immigration.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I was describing a closed system where CO2 could be controlled while everything else remains exactly the same. It would require a closed system in order to do that. Conversely, we live in a system where there are hundreds of variables, always in some state of flux ... which is why virtually every computer model the alarmists have used to "prove" their points has turned out to be significantly off.

Try again, but this time write a sentence that actually uses coherent English.

I explained this pretty clearly, but I'll spell it out again:

• The 25% represents the average effect CO2 has on the greenhouse gas effect.
• 3% is the amount of CO2 created by man (the other 97% occurs naturally)
• 15% is the amount of man-made CO2 (of the 3% overall) that the USA produces
• Therefore, the USA is responsible for 0.45% of all CO2 in the atmosphere .... which means the USA has roughly a 0.1% influence on climate.

Look at a list of the most prosperous nations on the planet, and then look a list of the nations that use the most fossil fuels. You'll see virtually a direct 1-to-1 correlation. "But but but that doesn't mean causation," you might say. True. But take a moment and consider how prosperous any of those nations would have become without the use of fossil fuels. Trains running without coal? Jets, trucks, and ships transporting goods without fuel? Computers without the electricity brought largely by coal-fired plants? Good luck.

You don't have to be sitting on oil in order to have access to rich natural resources. And even if you're sitting on all the natural resources in the world, that doesn't mean you'll be prosperous (see Venezuela).

Look at Japan--Japan has virtually NO natural resources for energy, and yet they're a first-world economy. They import energy, and because they've done so, they've grown their economy and quality of life massively in the last 60 years.

Who's creating the strawman now?