Climate Change Has Run Its Course

[buckeye45_73]

it was about control of humanity because liberals

So you think scientists the world over are in on a liberal conspiracy to control humanity through a climate change hoax?

no, only about half of them. But seriously, why isn't it enough to fight against pollution? why is the questionable link between pollution and climate necessary in order to fight pollution? OR, maybe its not really about pollution. THINK ABOUT IT.

A lot more than half of climate scientists believe human activity is impacting the environment.

sure, probably 100% believe that human activity is harming the environment. But less than 50% think human activity is causing climate change.

so, one more time, pollution is bad, we need to stop human pollution. pollution does not cause climate change, the climate change rhetoric is aimed at human control, not stopping pollution. please wake up to reality.

What's ironic, is the left and environmentalists are horrible at polluting.....they liter more than anyone....

 

[cnm]

How can it be, when we release around 90-95% less carbon than the Earth?
That doesn't even make sense.

Do you not accept the greenhouse gas theory?

 

[Thinker101]

Why is there absolutely no lab work showing the relationship between CO2 in several hundred ppm and temperature??

What a dork you are. Why is there no lab work about black holes? Obviously black holes can't exist if no lab work has been done on them.

Actually there has been lab work.
Physicists Have Created a 'Black Hole' in The Lab That Could Finally Prove Hawking Radiation Exists

 

[cnm]

adjective

1. 1.
   Anyone who disagrees with a Liberal.

Anyone who follows the big lie theory.

 

[Old Rocks]

Tell me what your plan is first.

You rejected it out of hand.

Are you asking me to (figuratively) chop off my dick? If so, I want more proof.

Are you asking me to pay more taxes? What are taxes going to pay for?

Are you asking for better technology? I am on board. What do I need to do?

Barrett Bellamy Climate - Greenhouse gas spectra

There you go, start with about third grade physics and in about ten years you will be able to understand the information on this site. LOL

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yes, less than half and the number of believers is getting smaller every year as more and more real data is collected and studied.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I guess the scientists at NASA are in on it too, because they and a lot of other credible sources say it's about 97% that believe we contribute to it to varying extents.

And before you retort with "the 97% figure is false" I'll go ahead and pull that argument apart. What's false is when it's said that 97% believe that humans are directly responsible and believe it's an imminent threat. What 97% do believe is that humans contribute to varying extents, with a large majority still believing we are a major contributor to climate change. The consensus was exaggerated, but only a little. What you just said is completely absurd and 100% false.

Yes, the word is out, conform or you are made an example of......its like finding out NPR is full of leftwingers.....no shit

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Ten things you didn’t know about insurance companies and climate change - Unfriend Coal

Eventually, this will change a lot of people's minds. For it is only going to get worse.

That couldn't possibly be the result of an increasing world population, could it?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

adjective

1. 1.
   Anyone who disagrees with a Liberal.

Anyone who follows the big lie theory.

Riiiight.

 

[Crick]

Climate Change Has Run Its Course

"Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers."

The world is getting warmer primarily due to human GHG emissions and deforestation. The process, of course, will carry on dependent solely on the rates of those activities. Your description might describe Trump-world, but it has no bearing on reality or on how the rest of the world is responding to that reality.

Al Gore was the face of 'Global Warming' and the sole reason it became a global political 'phenomenon'.

Al Gore WAS the face of global warming. He was NOT the sole reason it became a global political phenomenon. It became a phenomenon because it is real, because it is changing the planet and because it is a threat to our well being and that of virtually every other species on the planet.

Al Gore was also a scam artist, a con man who sought to make millions off of the idea of 'Carbon Credits'. What were Carbon Credits' and the idea behind it?

Al Gore is not a scam artist. Gore did not invent carbon credits and did not get rich from them. No one in mainstream science has relied on Gore for anything.

The concept was that there was too much carbon being produced by countries around the world, so 'THEY' (people like Gore) wanted to dictate to all the nations that they could only produce so much carbon each year. Each nation would have an allotted number of 'carbon credits - if they were going to produce any more carbon than that amount they would have to BUY more 'carbon credits'.

Before you attack an idea it might be a good idea to actually understand what you're attacking, because you do not. Five seconds in Wikipedia could have resolved that shortcoming, but I guess you'd already decided you had a superior understanding.
Wikipedia - Carbon Credits
A carbon credit is a generic term for any tradable certificate or permit representing the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide or the mass of another greenhouse gas with a carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide.[1][2][3]

Carbon credits and carbon markets are a component of national and international attempts to mitigate the growth in concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs). One carbon credit is equal to one tonne of carbon dioxide, or in some markets, carbon dioxide equivalent gases. Carbon trading is an application of an emissions trading approach. Greenhouse gas emissions are capped and then markets are used to allocate the emissions among the group of regulated sources.

The goal is to allow market mechanisms to drive industrial and commercial processes in the direction of low emissions or less carbon intensive approaches than those used when there is no cost to emitting carbon dioxide and other GHGs into the atmosphere. Since GHG mitigation projects generate credits, this approach can be used to finance carbon reduction schemes between trading partners and around the world.

There are also many companies that sell carbon credits to commercial and individual customers who are interested in lowering their carbon footprint on a voluntary basis. These carbon offsetters purchase the credits from an investment fund or a carbon development company that has aggregated the credits from individual projects. Buyers and sellers can also use an exchange platform to trade, which is like a stock exchange for carbon credits. The quality of the credits is based in part on the validation process and sophistication of the fund or development company that acted as the sponsor to the carbon project. This is reflected in their price; voluntary units typically have less value than the units sold through the rigorously validated Clean Development Mechanism.[4]

Market caps would not be set by Al Gore. Politicians would likely want to get involved, but the numbers need to be set by scientists.

That is sort of like ME deciding to tell everyone in the world that they are using too much OXYGEN, that they are allowed only so many breaths a day, and if they use / need to use any more breaths than their allotted amount they would have to BUY 'oxygen credits' from ME.

No. It is like the world's representatives telling companies they must limit the amount of poison they are releasing into the atmosphere; that they will be given an initial allotment but can purchase the right to release more or sell their rights if they are able to reduce emissions on their own. Excess carbon dioxide does not keep you alive. No one is going to die from the restrictions of carbon credits.

The concept of carbon credits did little to nothing to reduce the amount of carbon, but it would make a WHOLE lot of money for whoever controlled the Carbon Credits.

But I digress...

No, you simply demonstrate your ignorance. Baseline carbon credits are GRANTED, not sold. If a company finds a way to reduce their emissions, they will make money selling the credits they didn't require. It is that profit motive that would drive the development of lower emitting technologies.

From the 'hockey stick' to NASA data manipulation to crating non-existent alien races to ponder how they would deal with Global Warming, despite the 'Global Warming Warriors' claiming 'The Science Is Settled', the science used to back up their every claim was never settled...so much so that they were forced to change the title / name of 'Global Warming' to 'Climate change'.

When a AGW denier brings up global warming vs climate change, it is obvious that they have nothing to bring to the debate.

As the WSJ points out, the Climate Change / Global Warming 'crusade' has 'petered out', lost its momentum, and is no longer 'a pre-eminent policy issue'.

I suggest that the peer reviewed science journals might be a better source of information regarding the status of anthropogenic global warming. The WSJ was always a business-centric magazine but since its purchase by Murdoch, has become nothing but Fox News on paper - a right wing rag of no objective value.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I am asking you why they believe that. Why do you?

Because all of the evidence seems to point in that direction.

Because someone told you?

I have no problem admitting I don't have an expert understanding of the climate and its functions. For the most part, yes. When scientists and scientific institutions all over the world are all saying the same thing I tend to believe them.

What evidence? The "evidence" with holes in it bigger than stormy daniels asshole?
You would have been one of the people that was giggling when galileo got sentenced to permanent house arrest. You know, because so many people said he was full of shit..

What you said is funny because the people that were denying his work and persecuting him weren't scientists. They were people that didn't trust or believe in scientists. People like you.

I believe in science, my father is a chemist.......you know real science...chemistry, biology, physics, stuff that can be proven, not studies with "consensus" there was scientific consensus the Sun revolved around the Earth at one point........doesn't make it real......Now gravity....that is real, I can prove it every time

 

[Confounding]

He was discredited by SCIENTISTS. Like georg locher

I suppose it's natural that not every scientist immediately agreed with the idea he presented. That happens a lot in science. The truth prevails in the end though because science has this great self correcting quality. Science largely and eventually completely accepted his work. It wasn't scientists that were persecuting him for what he had discovered.

"in the end" which we are not even close to.

There is a very significant scientific consensus right now. If a modern Galileo comes along and proves it's bullshit I'll be the first to argue with the butt hurt liberals that can't accept it.

So you admit to my previous assertion. Lol awesome

If the scientists are right we can't afford to just wait around and make sure we're fucked. The consensus and evidence are strong enough that it's worth taking what measures we can to minimize our impact.

 

[cnm]

Actually there has been lab work.
Physicists Have Created a 'Black Hole' in The Lab That Could Finally Prove Hawking Radiation Exists

Did you read your link? Ffs, I'm getting tired of this.

Steinhauer has managed to created a lab-sized ‘black hole’ made from sound, and when he kicked it into gear, he witnessed particles steal energy from its fringes.
https://www.sciencealert.com​

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Tell me what your plan is first.

You rejected it out of hand.

Are you asking me to (figuratively) chop off my dick? If so, I want more proof.

Are you asking me to pay more taxes? What are taxes going to pay for?

Are you asking for better technology? I am on board. What do I need to do?

Barrett Bellamy Climate - Greenhouse gas spectra

There you go, start with about third grade physics and in about ten years you will be able to understand the information on this site. LOL

Learn to read.

I asked what we're going to do about it.

 

[Flash]

"i am one of the 97% of scientists that believe man is destroying our planet despite this cycle happening naturally. Now please excuse me while i go jump on my private jumbo jet that spews more co2 in 8 hours than you do all year, and be disingenuous to another group of useful idiots. Dont forget to sign the checks!"

If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong


So, are there big bucks to be had in climate science? Since it doesn't have a lot of commercial appeal, most of the people working in the area, and the vast majority of those publishing the scientific literature, work in academic departments or at government agencies. Penn State, home of noted climatologists Richard Alley and Michael Mann, has a strong geosciences department and, conveniently, makes the department's salary information available. It's easy to check, and find that the average tenured professor earned about $120,000 last year, and a new hire a bit less than $70,000. That's a pretty healthy salary by many standards, but it's hardly a racket.

$70-120K is a lot better than $20K a year flipping burgers, which is what a lot of these people would be making if they weren't scamming.

Climategate I & II exposed the scam. The principal scientists were all manipulating and fabricating data to make it fit their screwed up computer modeling. Under the Obama Administration we found out that NOAA and NASA were doing the same damn thing. Also the UN Climate Committee.

If this AGW was real and significant then there would be no reason to lie about it, would it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ten things you didn’t know about insurance companies and climate change - Unfriend Coal

Eventually, this will change a lot of people's minds. For it is only going to get worse.

That couldn't possibly be the result of an increasing world population, could it?

God, the longer they come, the stupider they get. Note that is number of events. Just how does an increasing global population increase the number of events?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Climate Change Has Run Its Course

"Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers."

The world is getting warmer primarily due to human GHG emissions and deforestation. The process, of course, will carry on dependent solely on the rates of those activities. Your description might describe Trump-world, but it has no bearing on reality or on how the rest of the world is responding to that reality.

Al Gore was the face of 'Global Warming' and the sole reason it became a global political 'phenomenon'.

Al Gore WAS the face of global warming. He was NOT the sole reason it became a global political phenomenon. It became a phenomenon because it is real, because it is changing the planet and because it is a threat to our well being and that of virtually every other species on the planet.

Al Gore was also a scam artist, a con man who sought to make millions off of the idea of 'Carbon Credits'. What were Carbon Credits' and the idea behind it?

Al Gore is not a scam artist. Gore did not invent carbon credits and did not get rich from them. No one in mainstream science has relied on Gore for anything.

The concept was that there was too much carbon being produced by countries around the world, so 'THEY' (people like Gore) wanted to dictate to all the nations that they could only produce so much carbon each year. Each nation would have an allotted number of 'carbon credits - if they were going to produce any more carbon than that amount they would have to BUY more 'carbon credits'.

Before you attack an idea it might be a good idea to actually understand what you're attacking, because you do not. Five seconds in Wikipedia could have resolved that shortcoming, but I guess you'd already decided you had a superior understanding.
Wikipedia - Carbon Credits
A carbon credit is a generic term for any tradable certificate or permit representing the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide or the mass of another greenhouse gas with a carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide.[1][2][3]

Carbon credits and carbon markets are a component of national and international attempts to mitigate the growth in concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs). One carbon credit is equal to one tonne of carbon dioxide, or in some markets, carbon dioxide equivalent gases. Carbon trading is an application of an emissions trading approach. Greenhouse gas emissions are capped and then markets are used to allocate the emissions among the group of regulated sources.

The goal is to allow market mechanisms to drive industrial and commercial processes in the direction of low emissions or less carbon intensive approaches than those used when there is no cost to emitting carbon dioxide and other GHGs into the atmosphere. Since GHG mitigation projects generate credits, this approach can be used to finance carbon reduction schemes between trading partners and around the world.

There are also many companies that sell carbon credits to commercial and individual customers who are interested in lowering their carbon footprint on a voluntary basis. These carbon offsetters purchase the credits from an investment fund or a carbon development company that has aggregated the credits from individual projects. Buyers and sellers can also use an exchange platform to trade, which is like a stock exchange for carbon credits. The quality of the credits is based in part on the validation process and sophistication of the fund or development company that acted as the sponsor to the carbon project. This is reflected in their price; voluntary units typically have less value than the units sold through the rigorously validated Clean Development Mechanism.[4]

Market caps would not be set by Al Gore. Politicians would likely want to get involved, but the numbers need to be set by scientists.

That is sort of like ME deciding to tell everyone in the world that they are using too much OXYGEN, that they are allowed only so many breaths a day, and if they use / need to use any more breaths than their allotted amount they would have to BUY 'oxygen credits' from ME.

No. It is like the world's representatives telling companies they must limit the amount of poison they are releasing into the atmosphere; that they will be given an initial allotment but can purchase the right to release more or sell their rights if they are able to reduce emissions on their own. Excess carbon dioxide does not keep you alive. No one is going to die from the restrictions of carbon credits.

The concept of carbon credits did little to nothing to reduce the amount of carbon, but it would make a WHOLE lot of money for whoever controlled the Carbon Credits.

But I digress...

No, you simply demonstrate your ignorance. Baseline carbon credits are GRANTED, not sold. If a company finds a way to reduce their emissions, they will make money selling the credits they didn't require. It is that profit motive that would drive the development of lower emitting technologies.

From the 'hockey stick' to NASA data manipulation to crating non-existent alien races to ponder how they would deal with Global Warming, despite the 'Global Warming Warriors' claiming 'The Science Is Settled', the science used to back up their every claim was never settled...so much so that they were forced to change the title / name of 'Global Warming' to 'Climate change'.

When a AGW denier brings up global warming vs climate change, it is obvious that they have nothing to bring to the debate.

As the WSJ points out, the Climate Change / Global Warming 'crusade' has 'petered out', lost its momentum, and is no longer 'a pre-eminent policy issue'.

I suggest that the peer reviewed science journals might be a better source of information regarding the status of anthropogenic global warming. The WSJ was always a business-centric magazine but since its purchase by Murdoch, has become nothing but Fox News on paper - a right wing rag of no objective value.

Surely you're joking...Al Gore made a ton off of carbon credits as did Arnold.....I mean they are all scam artists...and yes Al Gore was the face.....he made a movie that said we had 10 years and that was like14 years ago...........so I guess we can say **** it......let it ride now! or was he scamming us into thinking we had to ACT NOW!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the scientists are right we can't afford to just wait around and make sure we're fucked. The consensus and evidence are strong enough that it's worth taking what measures we can to minimize our impact.

Well, if you are asking us to chop off our dicks or _______ will happen, maybe we would like a second opinion.

What will happen if we do nothing?

What must we do to prevent it?

You want me to have faith in the great AGW god. I want to know what this god would want from me and what he will do if I refuse.

 

[cnm]

I believe in science, my father is a chemist.......you know real science...chemistry, biology, physics, stuff that can be proven, not studies with "consensus" there was scientific consensus the Sun revolved around the Earth at one point........doesn't make it real......Now gravity....that is real, I can prove it every time

Your father will be rolling in his grave. He produced a scientific illiterate.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

God, the longer they come, the stupider they get. Note that is number of events. Just how does an increasing global population increase the number of events?

The number of claims is DIRECTLY related to the number of insured.

 

[cnm]

Riiiight.

Just like the propaganda in the WSJ from a conservative columnist, not a scientist.