Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Azalin]

 

The only ignorance here is the belief that Climate Change (which is real and is happening today) won't impact us at all... when the majority of the world's population and economic centers currently reside on coast lines that are disappearing.

 

Again, denial is a fun game. Not helpful, but fun.

 

The bolded is what I have a problem with. Is it real? Is it happening today? According to whom? Is it a natural occurrence or is it at least in part man-made? I don't think there's anyone on Earth who can say either way with any certainty. I do know this for certain - Gary is right when he points out that our last major climate shift was the end of the last ice age. Tom is right when he points out that consensus isn't science. We all know for a fact that once politics entered the picture, the well was poisoned. Nobody believes anyone else because now both sides of the argument have a vested interest in being correct in their claims. The Earth's climate does not change overnight - it takes a long time for any meaningful shift to be observed.

 

I've often wondered (though I have a pretty good idea) how people would react if Washington stated that their new tactic for ridding the world of ISIS is to pour CO2 into the atmosphere, driving up the temperature around the globe, and roasting them out of existence. People would laugh at the very idea of such a thing, and I'd be willing to bet my last dollar that if it were a republican president in charge, the left would be screaming from the rooftops how such an idea is a complete impossibility.

[KD in CA]

 

The only ignorance here is the belief that Climate Change (which is real and is happening today) won't impact us at all... when the majority of the world's population and economic centers currently reside on coast lines that are disappearing.

 

Again, denial is a fun game. Not helpful, but fun.

 

The coastlines I've been living near and visiting my whole life all look pretty much the same as they ever did. Minor shore erosion is hardly a catastrophe.

 

Assuming we don't die from disease/nukes/asteroid strike first, of course climate change will eventually impact humans, but in very slow and gradual and inconsequential ways (that will barely register even in our children's children's lifetimes) since the climate changes very slowly and gradually. Of course, you can't gin up political outrage and huge money grabs based on slow and gradual so that's why we have all this bogus hysteria about the climate changing at warp speed.

 

Humans have been gradually evolving and adapting to their environment for hundreds of thousands of years; why does everything act as though that evolution should stop in the 21st century?

Edited July 7, 2015 by KD in CT

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Tell me how carbon credits will stop that!!

 

I never said they would. Man made vs natural isn't a debate that interests me because it'd focusing on the wrong thing. Blame.

 

I'd rather focus on solutions, or at least management of the problem so we're better prepared to handle the coming storm.

 

 

 

Really ?

 

Stretching the Truth is a good "game" too

 

 

 

 

 

The bolded is what I have a problem with. Is it real? Is it happening today? According to whom? Is it a natural occurrence or is it at least in part man-made? I don't think there's anyone on Earth who can say either way with any certainty. I do know this for certain - Gary is right when he points out that our last major climate shift was the end of the last ice age. Tom is right when he points out that consensus isn't science. We all know for a fact that once politics entered the picture, the well was poisoned. Nobody believes anyone else because now both sides of the argument have a vested interest in being correct in their claims. The Earth's climate does not change overnight - it takes a long time for any meaningful shift to be observed.

 

I've often wondered (though I have a pretty good idea) how people would react if Washington stated that their new tactic for ridding the world of ISIS is to pour CO2 into the atmosphere, driving up the temperature around the globe, and roasting them out of existence. People would laugh at the very idea of such a thing, and I'd be willing to bet my last dollar that if it were a republican president in charge, the left would be screaming from the rooftops how such an idea is a complete impossibility.

 

 

 

The coastlines I've been living near and visiting my whole life all look pretty much the same as they ever did. Minor shore erosion is hardly a catastrophe.

 

Assuming we don't die from disease/nukes/asteroid strike first, of course climate change will eventually impact humans, but in very slow and gradual and inconsequential ways (that will barely register even in our children's children's lifetimes) since the climate changes very slowly and gradually. Of course, you can't gin up political outrage and huge money grabs based on slow and gradual so that's why we have all this bogus hysteria about the climate changing at warp speed.

 

Humans have been gradually evolving and adapting to their environment for hundreds of thousands of years; why does everything act as though that evolution should stop in the 21st century?

 

The data is overwhelming, if you actually examine it without a political bent. I'm not suggesting this is an urgent threat that's going to wash away the shores tomorrow, but something we should be preparing our children and their children to handle. A rise in sea level of just six inches will cause chaos in much of the world -- even if the US is spared, you'll see massive unrest, political strife, starvation, and large numbers of people who will become refugees within the century.

 

That will have a geopolitical impact, a social impact, an economic impact, and threaten national security.

 

Arguing whether or not it's man made or natural is a waste of time. The only questions that matter is whether or not the climate is changing (it is) and how we are going to deal with it as a nation (carbon taxes aren't the answer).

[Azalin]

Arguing whether or not it's man made or natural is a waste of time. The only questions that matter is whether or not the climate is changing (it is) and how we are going to deal with it as a nation (carbon taxes aren't the answer).

 

I have to disagree with you on this. The entire argument is based on whether it's man made or not. That would seem to me to be especially true if the bolded is accurate. If there is no doubt that that the Earth is growing warmer (and I'm not willing to agree that it is), then isn't the focus automatically on why?

 

There are people out there with the desire to level all kinds of regulations, controls, and taxes on us based on something that hasn't been proven to exist, let alone whether humanity has anything to do with it.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Azalin

[unbillievable]

I'm starting a new Global Warming initiative.

 

I plan to move a large pile of rocks from the cold Arctic, to the warmer climates around the Caribbean, Mediterranean and Asian Pacific. I will be selling Carbon Credits to purchase a large yacht, (and maybe a private plane in the future) to accomplish this heroic selfless task. Buy them now!

 

-Inspired by lab studies showing that placing cold stones in a sealed hot environment considerably reduces ambient air temperature.

 

If you are low on funds, simply buy one of my smaller arctic rocks to keep (and display) at home. Then just sit back and watch it reduce Global Warming as it absorbs heat from the atmosphere. All from the safety of your living room!

 

Brag to your friends about how you're doing your part to save the planet!

 

Every little bit helps.

Edited July 7, 2015 by unbillievable

[IDBillzFan]

There are people out there with the desire to level all kinds of regulations, controls, and taxes on us based on something that hasn't been proven to exist, let alone whether humanity has anything to do with it.

 

On a smaller scale I see the same thing with the drought in California. Whenever we have a drought, we're told to cut back on usage or be fined exorbitant amounts. Now, no one has addressed what those fines will be for. They just have to have fines. Because nutbag progs will never miss an opportunity to tax and fine the bejeesus out of anything that walks or poops.

[Alaska Darin]

 

The data is overwhelming,

No it isn't.

[KD in CA]

 

On a smaller scale I see the same thing with the drought in California. Whenever we have a drought, we're told to cut back on usage or be fined exorbitant amounts. Now, no one has addressed what those fines will be for. They just have to have fines. Because nutbag progs will never miss an opportunity to tax and fine the bejeesus out of anything that walks or poops.

 

Maybe the fines will go to something new and different, like government employee pensions.

[GG]

 

 

The data is overwhelming, if you actually examine it without a political bent. I'm not suggesting this is an urgent threat that's going to wash away the shores tomorrow, but something we should be preparing our children and their children to handle. A rise in sea level of just six inches will cause chaos in much of the world -- even if the US is spared, you'll see massive unrest, political strife, starvation, and large numbers of people who will become refugees within the century.

 

That will have a geopolitical impact, a social impact, an economic impact, and threaten national security.

 

Arguing whether or not it's man made or natural is a waste of time. The only questions that matter is whether or not the climate is changing (it is) and how we are going to deal with it as a nation (carbon taxes aren't the answer).

 

What's the symptom, what's the disease & what's the cure?

 

This is another classic case of well meaning liberals completely missing the diagnosis, blaming their usual target, and suggesting a fix that has very little chance of working out at the end. It also ignores how humans have interacted with the Earth, and forget the lessons taught by the forefathers.

 

The inconvenient truth is that humans tended to shy away from coastal areas, because those areas were very prone to disasters a few times a century, and it made no sense to put your tribe in the path of God's wrath that was eventually due. Of course armed with better science and technology, humans have adapted to the coastlines, and coastline populations have swelled. But that ignores history and the Earth's penchant to rebalance its shores.

 

Of course the Gores of the world want their cake and eat it too. You can't take away my pristine coastline estate and force me to move a few hundred yards inland. You must end all industry, because that will make the bogeyman go away. There's never a thought given to the costs, time frames, and benefits they will achieve, never mind the shoddy data.

 

It must be done, because... well, because.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I have to disagree with you on this. The entire argument is based on whether it's man made or not. That would seem to me to be especially true if the bolded is accurate. If there is no doubt that that the Earth is growing warmer (and I'm not willing to agree that it is), then isn't the focus automatically on why?

 

There are people out there with the desire to level all kinds of regulations, controls, and taxes on us based on something that hasn't been proven to exist, let alone whether humanity has anything to do with it.

 

The entire political debate in the country is focused on that, which is why the debate is not worth having. It offers no solutions, only division. Keep people fighting amongst themselves over tangential points that have little to no impact on the real world situation so we don't starting asking the questions that really matter about how our country is run.

 

Just because the left's response to the issue is wrong, doesn't mean the problem isn't real. Which is where the science comes in.

No it isn't.

 

Again, denial is fun.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

The entire political debate in the country is focused on that, which is why the debate is not worth having. It offers no solutions, only division. Keep people fighting amongst themselves over tangential points that have little to no impact on the real world situation so we don't starting asking the questions that really matter about how our country is run.

 

Just because the left's response to the issue is wrong, doesn't mean the problem isn't real. Which is where the science comes in.

 

 

Again, denial is fun.

If it were real, that still wouldn't make it a problem, nor would I have any reason to care.

[Deranged Rhino]

If it were real, that still wouldn't make it a problem, nor would I have any reason to care.

 

Then I would suggest you haven't thought through the scope of potential ramifications. Climate change is not a localized issue. It'll be global.

[GG]

 

Then I would suggest you haven't thought through the scope of potential ramifications. Climate change is not a localized issue. It'll be global.

 

What's your realistic solution, other than complaining about it?

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Then I would suggest you haven't thought through the scope of potential ramifications. Climate change is not a localized issue. It'll be global.

Again, make me care. Sell me on why I should.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

What's your realistic solution, other than complaining about it?

 

The only thing I complain about is the myopic view of issue by most people, especially in this thread.

 

The number one priority is to drastically improve infrastructure along coastal cities, something that's massively overdue with or without climate change. The second is to stop debating the wrong issue. The issue we should be concerned with isn't cause, it's how to best position ourselves as a nation and a global community to limit the inevitable impacts that could, and will, create havoc on an unimaginable scale. Right now the bread basket of our nation, California, is dying of thirst. We're entering our second decade of record temps across the globe with no signs of letting up. We've seen the impact of famine and drought in Africa and are currently fighting multiple shooting wars because of the unrest and strife caused locally by this issue.

 

The world is changing. Pretending it's not happening, or reducing it to political rhetoric does nothing but keep us fighting amongst ourselves while the problem spirals beyond control.

Again, make me care. Sell me on why I should.

 

I'm not going to presume I'll be able to change anyone's mind on this subject. It's become too politicized over the past decade -- which is exactly what the folks in control wanted to have happen. People treat this subject the same way they treat abortion -- as a litmus test for one's political leanings -- which makes it nearly impossible to have a substantive discussion.

 

Future generations -- not a distant future either, I'm talking generations on this planet today -- will be forced to deal with the ramifications. We already are, and it's only going to get more drastic.

Edited July 7, 2015 by GreggyT

[GG]

 

The only thing I complain about is the myopic view of issue by most people, especially in this thread.

 

The number one priority is to drastically improve infrastructure along coastal cities, something that's massively overdue with or without climate change. The second is to stop debating the wrong issue. The issue we should be concerned with isn't cause, it's how to best position ourselves as a nation and a global community to limit the inevitable impacts that could, and will, create havoc on an unimaginable scale. Right now the bread basket of our nation, California, is dying of thirst. We're entering our second decade of record temps across the globe with no signs of letting up. We've seen the impact of famine and drought in Africa and are currently fighting multiple shooting wars because of the unrest and strife caused locally by this issue.

 

The world is changing. Pretending it's not happening, or reducing it to political rhetoric does nothing but keep us fighting amongst ourselves while the problem spirals beyond control.

 

 

It's a very naive notion to think that advanced societies can't prepare for a climate shift that's allegedly raising the sea level by a fraction of a centimeter in a year. The apparent two decade rise in temperatures could be affecting the global weather patterns, but it could also be result of constant change in the Earth's climate ands to use imprecise data to sound the alarm is the height of human narcissism. You're looking at decades worth of data to interpolate climate change of a multi billion year old planet. California may have been the bread basket for the last two hundred years, but was it always so? Wouldn't you have called Oklahoma the breadbasket of the US in the 1910s? What happened in the subsequent decades?

 

History is replete with extinct civilizations because the weather patterns changed and those civilizations didn't adapt? But many more civilizations adapted. Why did humans leave Africa if there was no reason to do so?

 

Everyone is focused on the calamity that climate change will bring. Few people are talking about the possible benefits. Was Greenland always covered with ice? Wasn't most of NYS covered with ice 15,000 years ago?

 

You are conflating man's natural urge to control the resources and the strife that comes with that. It has nothing to do with climate change. Lazy societies always squander resources and wither away. Smart societies find new resources when it makes economic sense. All of Northeast USA was deforested by 1870. I'd say it recovered nicely thanks to discovery of oil & gas. Fossil fuels will go away only when alternatives are better. To think otherwise is naive.

[B-Man]

No matter what you post from the "we have to address the climate" crowd. I will simply refer you to GG's well thought out and clearly stated responses.

 

 

 

 

What's the symptom, what's the disease & what's the cure?

 

This is another classic case of well meaning liberals completely missing the diagnosis, blaming their usual target, and suggesting a fix that has very little chance of working out at the end. It also ignores how humans have interacted with the Earth, and forget the lessons taught by the forefathers.

 

The inconvenient truth is that humans tended to shy away from coastal areas, because those areas were very prone to disasters a few times a century, and it made no sense to put your tribe in the path of God's wrath that was eventually due. Of course armed with better science and technology, humans have adapted to the coastlines, and coastline populations have swelled. But that ignores history and the Earth's penchant to rebalance its shores.

 

Of course the Gores of the world want their cake and eat it too. You can't take away my pristine coastline estate and force me to move a few hundred yards inland. You must end all industry, because that will make the bogeyman go away. There's never a thought given to the costs, time frames, and benefits they will achieve, never mind the shoddy data.

 

It must be done, because... well, because.

 

 

 

It's a very naive notion to think that advanced societies can't prepare for a climate shift that's allegedly raising the sea level by a fraction of a centimeter in a year. The apparent two decade rise in temperatures could be affecting the global weather patterns, but it could also be result of constant change in the Earth's climate ands to use imprecise data to sound the alarm is the height of human narcissism. You're looking at decades worth of data to interpolate climate change of a multi billion year old planet. California may have been the bread basket for the last two hundred years, but was it always so? Wouldn't you have called Oklahoma the breadbasket of the US in the 1910s? What happened in the subsequent decades?

 

History is replete with extinct civilizations because the weather patterns changed and those civilizations didn't adapt? But many more civilizations adapted. Why did humans leave Africa if there was no reason to do so?

 

Everyone is focused on the calamity that climate change will bring. Few people are talking about the possible benefits. Was Greenland always covered with ice? Wasn't most of NYS covered with ice 15,000 years ago?

 

You are conflating man's natural urge to control the resources and the strife that comes with that. It has nothing to do with climate change. Lazy societies always squander resources and wither away. Smart societies find new resources when it makes economic sense. All of Northeast USA was deforested by 1870. I'd say it recovered nicely thanks to discovery of oil & gas. Fossil fuels will go away only when alternatives are better. To think otherwise is naive.

[IDBillzFan]

But many more civilizations adapted.

 

Not sure why...and this is totally irrelevant, but when I read that I instantly thought of this:

 

[GG]

 

Not sure why...and this is totally irrelevant, but when I read that I instantly thought of this:

 

 

That was the exact image I wanted to project. Glad it worked.

[Chef Jim]

 

The only thing I complain about is the myopic view of issue by most people, especially in this thread.

 

The number one priority is to drastically improve infrastructure along coastal cities, something that's massively overdue with or without climate change. The second is to stop debating the wrong issue. The issue we should be concerned with isn't cause, it's how to best position ourselves as a nation and a global community to limit the inevitable impacts that could, and will, create havoc on an unimaginable scale. Right now the bread basket of our nation, California, is dying of thirst. We're entering our second decade of record temps across the globe with no signs of letting up. We've seen the impact of famine and drought in Africa and are currently fighting multiple shooting wars because of the unrest and strife caused locally by this issue.

 

 

 

 

This reads just like a Hollywood script. This is why I don't go to movies anymore. The writing raises things to a level of absurdity. Good job [golf clap}

 

Not sure why...and this is totally irrelevant, but when I read that I instantly thought of this:

 

 

I had a friend that did standup with Sam when he was just getting started. He said everyone was terrified of following Sam because they knew there would be no one left in the audience by the time he finished.