Global Warming. Kiss Your Ass Goodbye.

[San Souci]

I started a thread about a climate hero who actually set himself on fire to bring attention to human caused global warming. But I think we need to get directly to the point. Human caused global warming is a reality. And you are all doomed. For the most part, the media won't tell you about it. Which is run by the wealthy. They dictate your lives in every way. And they have decided not only that you will die, but how you will die. That being with as much ignorance as possible. Not only have they decided that you must die, but no doubt for many they view it as a necessary thing. The only thing any of you will get out of the issue is lip service. Not real action.

Even on a couple different television shows they showed on PBS on the issue, they brought up often enough a feedback loop in global warming. They spoke fairly often how one thing will reinforce another thing. But I don't remember them ever saying what a a feedback loop would actually mean. It means that the warmer things get, the FASTER it will get even warmer. They also seem to like to speak often on TV about what the ocean levels will be in the year 2100. But it is unlikely any of you will see the year 2050.

Your time is short. How short exactly is hard to say. I would give it 20 to 30 years. The reason why is mainly methane. It is around 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Bill Nye did a show about it called Global meltdown. Regardless of how you may feel about Bill Nye, in part of the show he talked to an actual scientist who had been studying the problem for about 15 years. Though he was a tenured professor at some university, he decided to give up his tenured professorship and start preparing for doomsday. And he said the worst culprit is methane. Like CO2, it is ever increasing. I will show you a graph of it. Astonishingly, despite things like thawing tundra, it is said that human activities are responsible for around 60% of it.

View attachment 651093

Or if you don't like that one, I have another.
View attachment 651094

One of the things that makes this so bad is that not in the history of the Earth have we ever been in this position. It the past of course it has been far warmer. But in more recent history it has been getting cooler. When things are cooler, of course more methane will have a chance to accumulate. Much gets buried underground of course. But not all of it. And when things start getting warmer faster as it is, that methane will have the ability to escape quickly. I will show you a graph of the Earths temperature to show what I am talking about.

View attachment 651095

Now for all those deniers out there, I will unload on you all of the human caused glob all warming graphs that I have. Feel free to deny away.

View attachment 651097

View attachment 651098

View attachment 651099

View attachment 651100

View attachment 651101

View attachment 651102

View attachment 651103

View attachment 651104

View attachment 651105

AHHHHH! The Sky is Falling!

 

[Crick]

AHHHHH! The Sky is Falling!

No, the world is getting warmer due to human greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide. That warming will have some very unpleasant effects in response to which enormous amounts of money will be spent. And because we have never done anything as soon as it ought to be done, enormous numbers of people will still suffer from that warming and some will die.

 

[marvin martian]

No, the world is getting warmer due to human greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide. That warming will have some very unpleasant effects in response to which enormous amounts of money will be spent. And because we have never done anything as soon as it ought to be done, enormous numbers of people will still suffer from that warming and some will die.

What are you personally doing to fight global warming?

 

[Crick]

What are you personally doing to fight global warming?

We've been through this before. What are you doing to improve your abysmal knowledge of general science?

 

[Foxfyre]

I started a thread about a climate hero who actually set himself on fire to bring attention to human caused global warming. But I think we need to get directly to the point. Human caused global warming is a reality. And you are all doomed. For the most part, the media won't tell you about it. Which is run by the wealthy. They dictate your lives in every way. And they have decided not only that you will die, but how you will die. That being with as much ignorance as possible. Not only have they decided that you must die, but no doubt for many they view it as a necessary thing. The only thing any of you will get out of the issue is lip service. Not real action.

Even on a couple different television shows they showed on PBS on the issue, they brought up often enough a feedback loop in global warming. They spoke fairly often how one thing will reinforce another thing. But I don't remember them ever saying what a a feedback loop would actually mean. It means that the warmer things get, the FASTER it will get even warmer. They also seem to like to speak often on TV about what the ocean levels will be in the year 2100. But it is unlikely any of you will see the year 2050.

Your time is short. How short exactly is hard to say. I would give it 20 to 30 years. The reason why is mainly methane. It is around 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Bill Nye did a show about it called Global meltdown. Regardless of how you may feel about Bill Nye, in part of the show he talked to an actual scientist who had been studying the problem for about 15 years. Though he was a tenured professor at some university, he decided to give up his tenured professorship and start preparing for doomsday. And he said the worst culprit is methane. Like CO2, it is ever increasing. I will show you a graph of it. Astonishingly, despite things like thawing tundra, it is said that human activities are responsible for around 60% of it.

View attachment 651093

Or if you don't like that one, I have another.
View attachment 651094

One of the things that makes this so bad is that not in the history of the Earth have we ever been in this position. It the past of course it has been far warmer. But in more recent history it has been getting cooler. When things are cooler, of course more methane will have a chance to accumulate. Much gets buried underground of course. But not all of it. And when things start getting warmer faster as it is, that methane will have the ability to escape quickly. I will show you a graph of the Earths temperature to show what I am talking about.

View attachment 651095

Now for all those deniers out there, I will unload on you all of the human caused glob all warming graphs that I have. Feel free to deny away.

View attachment 651097

View attachment 651098

View attachment 651099

View attachment 651100

View attachment 651101

View attachment 651102

View attachment 651103

View attachment 651104

View attachment 651105

Given that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these doomsday predictions, pretty much all of them due to political ambitions, has come and gone and the world is still doing just fine, the smart money says any new such predictions should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Given that even if human activity is causing some global warming, the 8+billion people are here and is projected to reach 11+ billion people by the end of this century, there is pretty much zero chance that short of busting the world back to Stone Age conditions, human activity will continue.

And since ALL the most draconian efforts to force people to use 'green energy' and reduce carbon/methane emissions has not decreased those so-called 'greenhouse gasses' by a single particle. And to force more and more of that on the people will have far more detrimental effect to world economies and quality of life than will the increase in global temperature by a degree or two centigrade.

Maybe important and maybe not, Stephen Pacala, Chairman of the Board of Climate Central that created those graphs, is on President Biden's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

 

[westwall]

Given that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these doomsday predictions, pretty much all of them due to political ambitions, has come and gone and the world is still doing just fine, the smart money says any new such predictions should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Given that even if human activity is causing some global warming, the 8+billion people are here and is projected to reach 11+ billion people by the end of this century, there is pretty much zero chance that short of busting the world back to Stone Age conditions, human activity will continue.

And since ALL the most draconian efforts to force people to use 'green energy' and reduce carbon/methane emissions has not decreased those so-called 'greenhouse gasses' by a single particle. And to force more and more of that on the people will have far more detrimental effect to world economies and quality of life than will the increase in global temperature by a degree or two centigrade.

Maybe important and maybe not, Stephen Pacala, Chairman of the Board of Climate Central that created those graphs, is on President Biden's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

"Green is the new Red"

 

[Crick]

Given that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these doomsday predictions, pretty much all of them due to political ambitions, has come and gone and the world is still doing just fine, the smart money says any new such predictions should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The doomsday predictions to which you refer were not made by mainstream climate scientists. Most were actually made by the fossil fuel industry's PR hacks. The predictions that mainstream science has made have ALL come to pass and the world is worse off because of it.

Given that even if human activity is causing some global warming, the 8+billion people are here and is projected to reach 11+ billion people by the end of this century, there is pretty much zero chance that short of busting the world back to Stone Age conditions, human activity will continue.

That is false. By the time we reach 11 billion, all the world's electricity and all the world's transportation needs will be serviced by non-emitting technologies.

And since ALL the most draconian efforts to force people to use 'green energy' and reduce carbon/methane emissions has not decreased those so-called 'greenhouse gasses' by a single particle.

Wrong.

U.S. CO2 emissions by year 2023 | Statista

CO₂ emissions in the U.S. have reduced by more than 17 percent when compared to 2005 levels to less than five GtCO₂ per year.

www.statista.com

And exactly what "draconian efforts" do you believe have been made to force people to use "green energy"?

And to force more and more of that on the people will have far more detrimental effect to world economies and quality of life than will the increase in global temperature by a degree or two centigrade.

Wrong. The cost of ignoring a problem is always higher than the cost of dealing with it. Global warming ignored is not going to stop itself after 1 or 2 degrees.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The cost of ignoring a problem is always higher than the cost of dealing with it.

Not when the government is wasting the money to "deal with it".

 

[Foxfyre]

The doomsday predictions to which you refer were not made by mainstream climate scientists. Most were actually made by the fossil fuel industry's PR hacks. The predictions that mainstream science has made have ALL come to pass and the world is worse off because of it.

That is false. By the time we reach 11 billion, all the world's electricity and all the world's transportation needs will be serviced by non-emitting technologies.

Wrong.

View attachment 953209

U.S. CO2 emissions by year 2023 | Statista

CO₂ emissions in the U.S. have reduced by more than 17 percent when compared to 2005 levels to less than five GtCO₂ per year.

www.statista.com

And exactly what "draconian efforts" do you believe have been made to force people to use "green energy"?

Wrong. The cost of ignoring a problem is always higher than the cost of dealing with it. Global warming ignored is not going to stop itself after 1 or 2 degrees.

Refute the thesis of the linked article in the OP if you can. (Hint: you'll waste your time because you won't be able to.)

A Balanced View of Climate Change

Paraphrased from my source for this thread: more than a million people are killed and multi millions injured in traffic accidents every year that goes by. We could reduce that carnage to near zero if we just reduced traffic speeds to 3 miles an hour. Anybody willing to agree to that to save...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Crick]

Refute the thesis of the linked article in the OP if you can. (Hint: you'll waste your time because you won't be able to.)

A Balanced View of Climate Change

Paraphrased from my source for this thread: more than a million people are killed and multi millions injured in traffic accidents every year that goes by. We could reduce that carnage to near zero if we just reduced traffic speeds to 3 miles an hour. Anybody willing to agree to that to save...

www.usmessageboard.com

That is not the OP of this thread. And Bjorn Lomborg is neither a climate scientist nor an economist. Why don't you have a look at

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

and

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

 

[Foxfyre]

That is not the OP of this thread. And Bjorn Lomborg is neither a climate scientist nor an economist. Why don't you have a look at

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

and

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

The article is entirely consistent to refute 'the sky is falling' thesis of this thread. The IPCC--and certainly those who write the "IPCC Summary for Policymakers"--is a political group that refuses to consider ANY scientist who disputes their 'consensus.'

So if Lomborg is wrong, you should be able to post credible sources showing WHY he is wrong. He doesn't dispute global warming in any way in his thesis. He only very credibly disputes the 'sky is falling' alarmism and the political policies that the government(s) use to deal with it.

 

[Crick]

The article is entirely consistent to refute 'the sky is falling' thesis of this thread. The IPCC--and certainly those who write the "IPCC Summary for Policymakers"--is a political group that refuses to consider ANY scientist who disputes their 'consensus.'

Are they scientists or politicians? The production of the IPCC's reports involves months and months of discussions between experts. The IPCC has established a very robust mechanism for quantifying the certainty of their various statements. No group of people is going to agree about every dot and tittle on any topic. Where they disagree, we get to see the majority opinion with a quantified measure that reflects the amount of disagreement was found among the experts. If there is no majority opinion, we are told that and presented the possibilities. This storyline that the IPCC is pushing some predetermined theory is more bullshit coming from the fossil fuel industry's PR campaign

So if Lomborg is wrong, you should be able to post credible sources showing WHY he is wrong. He doesn't dispute global warming in any way in his thesis. He only very credibly disputes the 'sky is falling' alarmism and the political policies that the government(s) use to deal with it.

How about we look at the Working Group I authors of the SPM? They don't look like politicians to me.

IPCC Authors

 

[Foxfyre]

Are they scientists or politicians? The production of the IPCC's reports involves months and months of discussions between experts. The IPCC has established a very robust mechanism for quantifying the certainty of their various statements. No group of people is going to agree about every dot and tittle on any topic. Where they disagree, we get to see the majority opinion with a quantified measure that reflects the amount of disagreement was found among the experts. If there is no majority opinion, we are told that and presented the possibilities. This storyline that the IPCC is pushing some predetermined theory is more bullshit coming from the fossil fuel industry's PR campaign

How about we look at the Working Group I authors of the SPM? They don't look like politicians to me.

IPCC Authors

And not a word of the IPPC Summary for Policymakers even addresses, much less disputes, the argument Lomborg makes.

 

[Crick]

And not a word of the IPPC Summary for Policymakers even addresses, much less disputes, the argument Lomborg makes.

Lomborg has been making that argument for ages now and it doesn't get addressed for the same reason they don't address a flat earth or chemtrails or the fantastic grand hoax of falsified temperature data you've all been clinging to. And do you realize that there is an SPM in each of the IPCC's four reports making up AR6? Have you read every single word of every single one of them? If not, don't attempt to tell us what is and is not to be found there.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lomborg has been making that argument for ages now and it doesn't get addressed for the same reason they don't address a flat earth or chemtrails or the fantastic grand hoax of falsified temperature data you've all been clinging to. And do you realize that there is an SPM in each of the IPCC's four reports making up AR6? Have you read every single word of every single one of them? If not, don't attempt to tell us what is and is not to be found there.

Lomborg falsified no figures in that article.

 

[Crick]

Lomborg falsified no figures in that article.

I could quote dozens of active climate scientists and economists who will tell you that Bjorn Lomborg is full of shite. But Lomborg is telling you what you want to hear, so it would make no difference, would it. And weren't you just criticizing the authors of "The Physical Science Basis, SPM for all being politicians? I showed you that they were indeed degreed scientists. Lomborg has a PhD in Political Science. He's the fucking politician. He's not a scientist. He's not an economist. He's using his very selective arguments to push a POLITICAL AGENDA. I think you're foolish to follow him.

 

[marvin martian]

We've been through this before. What are you doing to improve your abysmal knowledge of general science?

Right, you did mention, as I expected, that you do nothing personally to fight global warming.

Just like your betters who fly around on their private jets and tell you to stop traveling, eating meat, using your air conditioning, and driving.

LOL

 

[Foxfyre]

I could quote dozens of active climate scientists and economists who will tell you that Bjorn Lomborg is full of shite. But Lomborg is telling you what you want to hear, so it would make no difference, would it. And weren't you just criticizing the authors of "The Physical Science Basis, SPM for all being politicians? I showed you that they were indeed degreed scientists. Lomborg has a PhD in Political Science. He's the fucking politician. He's not a scientist. He's not an economist. He's using his very selective arguments to push a POLITICAL AGENDA. I think you're foolish to follow him.

Go right ahead and quote.

 

[eagle1462010]

We've been through this before. What are you doing to improve your abysmal knowledge of general science?

Stop breathing. C02 coming out. Do your part

 

[San Souci]

No, the world is getting warmer due to human greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide. That warming will have some very unpleasant effects in response to which enormous amounts of money will be spent. And because we have never done anything as soon as it ought to be done, enormous numbers of people will still suffer from that warming and some will die.

If the Temp goes up 2 degrees by 2050? Doubt it. Besides ,we have Air Conditioning.