What's new
US Message Board ūü¶Ö Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What I Don't Understand About "Climate Change"

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
17,032
Reaction score
5,253
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
That is right. Coincidence does not mean correlation. By my count, the Earth has had seven major heating events that dwarf our so called climate change now. Likewise, the Earth has had at least seven major Ice Ages as well where the Earth practically turned into one big frozen snowball. None of it was caused by man. That is not to say that exhaust from factory and cars don't have some reenforcing or contributory influences.


A little like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Much like the Left's Covid response, their shutdowns did more harm than the virus itself, if we did what the Left wants now, we might effect some cooling or blunt some of the heating, but to what end? We might save a polar bear or a penguin, but at the expense of wrecking human civilization.


Not much. Rather foolhardy to leap into an agreement which punishes you the most while leaving the planet's greatest polluter, ie, CHINA, scott free. Does that mean I'm against a cleaner planet, smaller footprint and greener energy? Not at all, but these things WILL COME, but they must come naturally because their time has come, they are practical and effective and MARKETABLE to the human community at large as attractive, easy and affordable, not because some blowhard in the Oval Office orders it to placate his pathetic ego.

Wrong.
No one ever suggested there was not a normal climate cycle, but as harmful, destructive, and costly as it is, the normal and natural cycle is over 110,000 years long.
Since we are compressing that artificially into a 200 year period, isn't it obvious that will be far more harmful, destructive, and costly?
And since we currently are just past the hottest peak of the natural cycle, we are artificially compounding a new hot on top of the existing natural max hot, which essentially will double it, something never before experienced by the planet.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
43,804
Reaction score
30,049
Points
2,615
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
Pete, ol' boy, you are one dumb fuck.
Obviously not as dumb as you.

Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America‚Äôs economy. What does this mean for the nation‚Äôs political-economic divide?​

ROFL.gif
Idiot. Your own charts show the exact opposite: that blue states lead the country in dropouts and that red states lead the field in degrees! Further, your very argument furthers the division of the states as there should not be any red or blue states------ until a few years ago, states leaned blue or red in response to the actual CANDIDATE. But apparently now you admit that the democrats have purposefully frozen some states to be permanently blue NO MATTER WHAT for the sake of the PARTY, not the country, while attacking "red" states and trying to turn them blue!

Proving once again that progressive-liberalism is a BLIGHT upon this country worse than any virus that simply must be rubbed out so that we can unite again as all RED WHITE AND BLUE STATES, not your fucking phony, pathetic blue states.
 
OP
Independentthinker

Independentthinker

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
1,536
Reaction score
1,029
Points
928
Wrong.
What I said is that the NORMAL climate cycle of cold and warm is about 110,000 years long.
But we have condensed that cycle into a much shorter period.
Actually were just leaving the hottest part of this natural climate cycle, and are adding and additional and new hot cycle on top of it, essentially condensing what would normally take about 50,000 years, into just 40 years.
And while the normal cycle has about a 5 degree temperature change, we seem likely to make this one achiever about a 10 degree swing.
Some theorize even more, if a runaway race conditions starts (positive feedback from water vapor, etc.).
Wrong.
 
OP
Independentthinker

Independentthinker

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
1,536
Reaction score
1,029
Points
928
Wrong.
Per capita is all that counts, because everyone needs and deserves some emissions per person.
The crime is only when the per capital amount is exceeded.
And the US is cheating, using its excess emissions to gain economic and military advantages over others, who then are forced to try to keep up.
If the US had more babies, we likely would be less greedy and would pollute a lot less.
Wrong
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,805
Reaction score
8,781
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
I agree, yet I understand why people are trying to save as many lives as they can.

Having said that we need to just let it go, some will die as a result but in the end that old term herd immunity will set in and life will go on.
:)-
So you think that we should take do no medical intervention in the Covid. Well, that equals over a 2% death rate, so for the us that is about 7 million people. Plus all the people that suffer long lasting effects from the Covid. I suggest all that think like you try a swim to Hawaii, and let sane people run the nation.
 
OP
Independentthinker

Independentthinker

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
1,536
Reaction score
1,029
Points
928
Wrong.
Per capita is all that matters.
That establishes the economic baseline everyone has to try to compete against.
No one else is going to reduce emissions until we do on a per capital basis.
Anything else would just be deliberate deception.
The US is the entire and ONLY problem.
Fix the US, and the rest of the world will stop polluting then as well.
Wrong
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,805
Reaction score
8,781
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
Obviously not as dumb as you.


View attachment 541404 Idiot. Your own charts show the exact opposite: that blue states lead the country in dropouts and that red states lead the field in degrees! Further, your very argument furthers the division of the states as there should not be any red or blue states------ until a few years ago, states leaned blue or red in response to the actual CANDIDATE. But apparently now you admit that the democrats have purposefully frozen some states to be permanently blue NO MATTER WHAT for the sake of the PARTY, not the country, while attacking "red" states and trying to turn them blue!

Proving once again that progressive-liberalism is a BLIGHT upon this country worse than any virus that simply must be rubbed out so that we can unite again as all RED WHITE AND BLUE STATES, not your fucking phony, pathetic blue states.

Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016 and 2020

YearCandidateCounties wonTotal votesAggregate share of US GDP
2016Hillary Clinton47265,853,62564%
Donald Trump2,58462,985,10636%
2020Joe Biden52081,283,09871%
Donald Trump2,56474,222,95829%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties. Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018 GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.

 
OP
Independentthinker

Independentthinker

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
1,536
Reaction score
1,029
Points
928
You are the fool here. Apparently you have zero understanding of the history of the Earth, or of natural geological processes. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied of the history of the Earth for a number of natural reasons. That hardly means that we can double the amount of GHGs without affecting the temperature of the Earth.
You are the fool here. The left would have the US do all of the work and pay most of the cost and suffer most of the effects of their policies while China goes on to rule the world and reap all of the rewards as they don't do their part, while the world's pollution gets worse anyway.
 
Last edited:

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
56,356
Reaction score
16,211
Points
2,180
Not totally accurate because all we have to do in order to greatly increase CO2 is just more tropical slash and burn agriculture.
It does not at all require any increase in technical advancement.

But assuming it would take 100 years to increase climate by 5 degrees, what is your point?
A change of 5 degrees is huge and could cause massive starvation and dislocation as coastal cities become unlivable.
To give you a perspective, they estimate an 11 degree increase would cause human species extinction.
The East Coast, according to these two individuals, is affected more by technology than other areas.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
17,032
Reaction score
5,253
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Find the most economic way of doing it, build it, and sell it to the world. More wealth for all. The poor nations are the very ones that will feel the worst effects of climate change.

The US is at fault.
For example, after WWII, oil was expensive in Europe and people were poor, so European cars were very small and efficient.
Engine size ranged from .85 liters to 2.0 liters, getting 30 to 40 mpg.
US cars were more like 7.0 liter engines, getting more like 12 mpg.
European cars now have double the engine size, due to US influence.
And while US cars have reduced size and doubled mpg due to European influence, we still are using 5 liter engines at only 25 mpg.
We should be using half that much fuel by now.
We have the technology, but just are making huge SUVs.
Its all status and appearance.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
17,032
Reaction score
5,253
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
You are the fool here. The left would have the US do all of the work and pay most of the cost and suffer most of the effects of their policies while China goes on to rule the world and reap all of the rewards as they don't do their part.

The Chinese and everyone in the world has a right to the same std of living as anyone else, like the US.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,805
Reaction score
8,781
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
Obviously not as dumb as you.


View attachment 541404 Idiot. Your own charts show the exact opposite: that blue states lead the country in dropouts and that red states lead the field in degrees! Further, your very argument furthers the division of the states as there should not be any red or blue states------ until a few years ago, states leaned blue or red in response to the actual CANDIDATE. But apparently now you admit that the democrats have purposefully frozen some states to be permanently blue NO MATTER WHAT for the sake of the PARTY, not the country, while attacking "red" states and trying to turn them blue!

Proving once again that progressive-liberalism is a BLIGHT upon this country worse than any virus that simply must be rubbed out so that we can unite again as all RED WHITE AND BLUE STATES, not your fucking phony, pathetic blue states.
LOL Not only can you not read graphs, you are demonstrating the idiocy of the normal "Conservative". Here are a few more facts for you, not that it will make any difference to you, You cannot teach willful ignorance.

"To be sure, racial and cultural resentment have been the prime factors of the Trump backlash, but it‚Äôs also clear that the two parties speak for and to dramatically different segments of the American economy. Where Republican areas of the country rely on lower-skill, lower-productivity ‚Äútraditional‚ÄĚ industries like manufacturing and resource extraction, Democratic, mostly urban districts contain large concentrations of the nation‚Äôs higher-skill, higher-tech professional and digital services."
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,805
Reaction score
8,781
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
The US is at fault.
For example, after WWII, oil was expensive in Europe and people were poor, so European cars were very small and efficient.
Engine size ranged from .85 liters to 2.0 liters, getting 30 to 40 mpg.
US cars were more like 7.0 liter engines, getting more like 12 mpg.
European cars now have double the engine size, due to US influence.
And while US cars have reduced size and doubled mpg due to European influence, we still are using 5 liter engines at only 25 mpg.
We should be using half that much fuel by now.
We have the technology, but just are making huge SUVs.
Its all status and appearance.
We should not be making ICE's now, period. The technology for EV's is mature enough that we should be building nothing but EV's, both in private vehicles and commercial transportation.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
17,032
Reaction score
5,253
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
The East Coast, according to these two individuals, is affected more by technology than other areas.

Likely true, but technology causes things like urban heat domes that deflect weather locally.
They are not global weather factors as much.

The global climate factors are what changes the upper atmosphere on the border with space, because that is where carbon changes photonic rf radiation into vibratory heat and prevents it from radiating out into space.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
56,356
Reaction score
16,211
Points
2,180
Likely true, but technology causes things like urban heat domes that deflect weather locally.
They are not global weather factors as much.

The global climate factors are what changes the upper atmosphere on the border with space, because that is where carbon changes photonic rf radiation into vibratory heat and prevents it from radiating out into space.
Apparently, 6 months of research left them with a different point of view.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
17,032
Reaction score
5,253
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
We should not be making ICE's now, period. The technology for EV's is mature enough that we should be building nothing but EV's, both in private vehicles and commercial transportation.

I do not agree.
Since electricity now comes mostly from coal, and EVs are incredibly inefficient do to batter in and out loses, as well as doubling vehicle weight, then EVs increase emissions, not decrease.
The least emissions comes from bio fuel ICE.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
43,804
Reaction score
30,049
Points
2,615
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
What have you been smoking?

No one ever suggested there was not a normal climate cycle
Ive seen many lefties argue just that.

, but as harmful, destructive, and costly as it is, the normal and natural cycle is over 110,000 years long.
RUBBISH. Now you are arguing for a simplistic view of one of the Milankovich cycles, but that only partly explains a small part of a fraction of the Earth's cycles I've described.

Since we are compressing that artificially into a 200 year period,
We are? 200 years? You mean there was man made climate change going on on 1821 when Mozart was penning his first compositions and the steam engine was first being developed?

isn't it obvious that will be far more harmful, destructive, and costly?
No. Your fix for it all just as with your shutdowns will prove far more costly than the dilemma you sought to fix.

And since we currently are just past the hottest peak of the natural cycle, we are artificially compounding a new hot on top of the existing natural max hot, which essentially will double it, something never before experienced by the planet.
Really? You think the Earth has never lived through and recovered just fine from two bigger concurrent events than this? :21: :laughing0301: Geez, where did you get your education from, Comedy College?

Just suppose we find as time goes on and the current Milankovich cycle fades that indeed, we are due to head into the next cooling period/mini ice age and our little contributions now are all that is delaying us falling sooner back into a sub-polar climate killing billions? Because the next cooling period is coming, you can bet; we have clocked seven ice ages over the past 2.5 million years not including the little mini cooling periods.

Fact of the matter is that man-made or natural, another hot spell or cooling period is coming, that is the nature of climate-- -- -- CHANGE. Climate is ALWAYS changing, always has, it is only through a miraculously fortuitous stabilizing influence of our large Moon that they are not much worse, and history shows that eventually, it will effect a house cleaning someway, somehow, and eradicate much of the human overpopulation we have inflicted upon the planet-- -- whether we want it or not.
 
Last edited:

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,805
Reaction score
8,781
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
The Chinese and everyone in the world has a right to the same std of living as anyone else, like the US.
And therein lies the rub. They cannot have it doing what we have always done without destroying the ecology we depend on. Therefore, we must adapt the new technologies as rapidly as possible. China is already doing that by leading the world in installation of solar and wind, in the adaption of EV's, and in planting new forests.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
17,032
Reaction score
5,253
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Apparently, 6 months of research left them with a different point of view.

Local surface heat production or emissions have little global climate effect.
The main cause of global warming is the reduction of carbon absorption by trees and oceans, more than by the increased production of emissions.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top