How many of you believe in Climate change?

^^^^ I don't know why it turned all my text blue. Oh well.

 

And again you reach into the bag of dirty tricks. In hope that somebody reading this thread won't go back to my post and see that the quote is a summary followed by picking your previous post apart. If you don't like getting called out on being disingenuous then stop being disingenuous.

Already told you. It's hard to understand because you misuse terms like closed system.

Great argument!

Wrong. I've - apparently unsuccesfully - tried to explain that the greenhouse effect is not bad, it's the change of it that is bad. And that change is almost entirely caused by co2 and methane which traps heat on its own but decomposes into co2 after a while.
That 3% is also bullshit since that co2 which goes up naturally is not a problem since it gets canceled by other parts of the carbon cycle. Again, the heating is caused by the change, the new molecules introduced into the cycle by human activity.
Your 15% remains 15% pal.

Regarding the rest of your post - I don't disagree too much. But it's questionable whether the developing countries can become developed enough to be able to face a very different climate in time. I doubt that. Especially since their labor force is being exploited and their natural resources snatched by foreign (Western, Chinese) corporate.

 

I recently discovered the work of Mathematician David McKay. Has anyone ever heard of him?

He wrote a book called 'Sustainable energy without the hot air' in which he crunches the numbers on various policy options in the fight against global warming.
It's free and very interesting.

There's a moment in a talk he gave at Harvard in which he reflects on how science actually works, how it's validated, in general and in the context of climate change. In particular the fact that experts now have robust models that can make reliable and quite complex prediction..
(in case you want to google 'David McKay at Harvard', it's at minute 58)
The entire talk is great too. You might like it.

 

I don’t believe it based basically on common sense. It's common sense that the world's not ending, life goes on, etc. Then there's the Climategate e-mails and the manipulation of the hockey stick graph. Then there's the conflicts of interest in the scientific community. Then there's the fact that "scientists" have repeatedly prophesized our doom (like Paul Ehrlich), only for it not to materialize.

 

Yep. If climate change was such and imminent threat, why are they selling pollution credits to corporations and governments? They got endless options for clean energy and just flat out refuse to implement it. If this was that serious then why not Implement one of the many options for clean energy while they're creating all this hysteria about how the globe is about to explode. This alone is proof that this is all just a scam.

 

Figured I would throw in my two-cents worth. I definitely think that it is happening, and I think that we are influencing it as a species, but I do not think it will be as bad as some claim. Also, we cannot accurately predict what is going to happen. Climate change models that attempt to predict future events make assumptions that, over the long term, do not hold up. The climate is a nonlinear system being modeled as a linear one.

 

Not sure who is "they" and what clean energy options you have in mind but never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence (or a different kind of malice). That's like saying "If guns really killed people, they'd be banned already," and then blowing your own brains out thinking you're safe.

 

OMG, this topic always hit my anxiety spot. But, sometimes I feel that there is a still hope. There are mainly 2 big reason behind everything in this world ( which I suppose) ENVIRONMENT and POPULATION. We got here after a long time of evolution and good medical facility to live longer life, it doesn't happen in span of few 15 or 20 years. Hope in which I believe is that we can tackle this with coming 40 years, you know why, because now younger generation are concerned about the climate, and also people now days are having 1 or 2 babies (I can see this around me). Also in my community, we plant trees on different occasions just to celebrate. So I think the change is a long process. We are going to be ok.
My English is not good.

 

Well, here's the chart, directly from the EPA and the IPCC. Are you accusing the EPA and IPCC from spreading bullshit?

So, just so I'm clear ... are you suggesting that plants know the difference between naturally-created CO2 and man-made CO2, and that they absorb one but not the other?

 

Of course not. I'm accusing you of spreading bullshit.
As I've - I believe twice now - already explained, the natural carbon emissions - those 770 billion tons if the table is correct - get canceled by roughly the same amount being absorbed by organisms - that's the carbon cycle.
As a result, the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere DOES NOT change much. That total amount is just right for us as it traps enough and not too much heat so the temperature remains relatively stable.
However when you introduce new carbon to the cycle - 23 billion tons if the table is correct - the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere DOES change, namely increase. If you do it for a couple decades, enough molecules accumulate to bring about measurable temperature increases.

See above.

I somehow get the feeling that you know all this - it's pretty simple and you don't strike me as a dumb guy. Are you testing if you can gaslight others?

 

You do understand that when CO2 in the atmosphere increases, plant biomass grows because there is more "plant oxygen" available, right? And that increased biomass helps absorb the increased CO2. That is the carbon cycle.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18433443

Boom. The more you know ...

 

Accusing me of gaslighting is pretty rich when 1) you said my 3% claim was bullshit, 2) had it shoved in your face that the 3% figure came directly from the IPCC, and 3) pretended that you didn't claim the 3% figure was bullshit.

That's the textbook definition of gaslighting.

 

No, that's not the carbon cycle. You don't get to redefine terms to your liking. And I'm sure all that extra sugarcane will consume billions of tons of co2. If it covers a continent or two, grow tall enough to reach the stratosphere and become reflective, it might just work...

The 3% figure is bullshit because it's meaningless. Already explained, no intention to do it again.

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere and hereby eject myself out of it.

 

I'm just sceptic of the solutions politicians recommend.

 

I believe in Climate Change, I don't know how much it's going to effect our lives as a species though. I mean honestly the earth has been getting warmer exponentially ever since the last Ice Age. I don't see how this is going to cause the extinction of the human race as some more radical Environmentalists believe. Humans lived before the Ice Age, and they will live after its effects are gone. My response however specifically addresses the topic of global warming, which I feel is the main paradigm when this topic is brought up. If I am misrepresenting your argument let me know.

 

My belief on climate change is that it gets hot in the summer and cold in the winter.

It has always been the same in this part of NY, but what I do believe in is fear mongering and how what mainstream media and news says can get control on the public’s way of thinking.

It’s not worth it, living in fear, one should live each day like it’s our last, otherwise we will always have been living afraid of things like climate change, we should be more invested in what can do for ourselves and other people in the time frame that we are here. There should also be a large emphasis on the “Story” part of News, one does not know unless they have experienced it for themselves, but most just go off word of mouth.

 

What makes you think that?

 

Never actively looked into to see the damage or the claims or w.e. My school kind of taught like this is greenhouse gas and the ozone layer. But I truthfully am unaware of the claims to effects, or the studies behind it that supports this or that. I also am unaware of the other sides argument. Its just not something I have looked into much and I feel like I am the majority of the population. I believe "yeah something is probably happening IDK what but its probably not like its going to completely kill us off and probably only partially man made not like I have seen anything that saids otherwise (and I haven't looked for it either) but oh well"

I understand in this thread (which will naturally draw the two opposing sides) that this maybe an 'unpopular opinion' but I think that this is a very popular one and it comes from ignorance. So I am not trying to be rude. If you wanna slide in my DMs and drop me studies to read that would be appreciated as I acknowledge I could use more knowledge on this.

 

The attitude that it seems to me Americans more than other nationals often have is one of three

• everything is fucked and there can be nothing done because fate
  
• we'll be okay because something else will come save us
  
• fake news

I think the first two are a result of a religious kind of thinking still being a large influence in society and the third is a backlash against ubiqutous advertisement, 'experts' on everything and generally appearance over substance which is now everywhere but especially in the US.