Okay... look.
If what Mankind has done and is doing has no affect on the changing of the climate... then, whatever pollution China is pouring into the air and water is not a factor and China can continue on this path because it is in China's best interest to mass produce goods as cheaply as possible.
...
As Americans, we don't want the world to tell us how to run our shit, right?
If that is true, who are we to tell China how to run theirs?
china is definitely the biggest polluter and a huge contributor but they are starting to recognize the impacts of their industrialization ... asia has suffered some of the more tragic consequences of global warming to date ... and now china is spending significant money on renewables ...
And this statement is at the core of my skepticism. If I think critically about it, I know that 30 years of study about the climate of a planet that is millions of years old does not mean anything at all.
I understand the climate is changing. I love the environment and want to stop pollution as much as anyone. I certainly wasn't brainwashed. I just have my doubts that scientists really understand the entire situation.
but have you studied the basic science and come to that conclusion or do you just say that!? ... this earth is old thing and we can't possibly understand it is like the go to play for the people who's sole purpose is to continue to keep people in the dark about global warming ...
on another note - it at least seems like people see that the climate is indeed changing ... so, now, it's really just a matter of believing the cause ... i also get that when this debate started ... many people were on the other side and it's patently hard for people to admit being wrong and so they hold out for as long as possible ...
And this statement is at the core of my skepticism. If I think critically about it, I know that 30 years of study about the climate of a planet that is millions of years old does not mean anything at all.
I understand the climate is changing. I love the environment and want to stop pollution as much as anyone. I certainly wasn't brainwashed. I just have my doubts that scientists really understand the entire situation.
but have you studied the basic science and come to that conclusion or do you just say that!? ... this earth is old thing and we can't possibly understand it is like the go to play for the people who's sole purpose is to continue to keep people in the dark about global warming ...
on another note - it at least seems like people see that the climate is indeed changing ... so, now, it's really just a matter of believing the cause ... i also get that when this debate started ... many people were on the other side and it's patently hard for people to admit being wrong and so they hold out for as long as possible ...
I know basic science principles would admit that 30 years of study (of maybe 100 years of accurate data at most) is not enough to make accurate conclusions of a planet as old as ours.
But no - I have not studied the basic climate change science....although I have observed that it's not called global warming anymore and that the hole in the ozone has gone away (or at least isn't mentioned).
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
And this statement is at the core of my skepticism. If I think critically about it, I know that 30 years of study about the climate of a planet that is millions of years old does not mean anything at all.
I understand the climate is changing. I love the environment and want to stop pollution as much as anyone. I certainly wasn't brainwashed. I just have my doubts that scientists really understand the entire situation.
but have you studied the basic science and come to that conclusion or do you just say that!? ... this earth is old thing and we can't possibly understand it is like the go to play for the people who's sole purpose is to continue to keep people in the dark about global warming ...
on another note - it at least seems like people see that the climate is indeed changing ... so, now, it's really just a matter of believing the cause ... i also get that when this debate started ... many people were on the other side and it's patently hard for people to admit being wrong and so they hold out for as long as possible ...
I know basic science principles would admit that 30 years of study (of maybe 100 years of accurate data at most) is not enough to make accurate conclusions of a planet as old as ours.
But no - I have not studied the basic climate change science....although I have observed that it's not called global warming anymore and that the hole in the ozone has gone away (or at least isn't mentioned).
Why would we need, say, 150 or 200 years of study when the causes of anthropogenic climate change/global warming did not exist 150 or 200 years ago? We've had plenty of time to study the affects of humans on the environment. We can continue to collect data but without taking action to reduce our impact we are only making things worse-- and exponentially so.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I know basic science principles would admit that 30 years of study (of maybe 100 years of accurate data at most) is not enough to make accurate conclusions of a planet as old as ours.
But no - I have not studied the basic climate change science....although I have observed that it's not called global warming anymore and that the hole in the ozone has gone away (or at least isn't mentioned).
the whole global warming / climate change thing is yet another fiasco ... it is global warming ... the fundamental problem we are facing is global warming ... one of the key impacts of global warming is climate change ...
i suggest you go read one of the many websites that explains global warming ... this is what i find frustrating ... people sit there in denial and yet they don't even bother to find out the facts ...
more people have died recently due to flooding in the phillipines ... insurance rates are gonna go up here in Toronto due to recent flooding ... island nations are planning full scale relocation because of rising sea levels ...
all this for a problem we can EASILY fix with absolutely very little cost ... but yet - we sit here in 2013 continuing to argue over it's existence ...
I know basic science principles would admit that 30 years of study (of maybe 100 years of accurate data at most) is not enough to make accurate conclusions of a planet as old as ours.
But no - I have not studied the basic climate change science....although I have observed that it's not called global warming anymore and that the hole in the ozone has gone away (or at least isn't mentioned).
the whole global warming / climate change thing is yet another fiasco ... it is global warming ... the fundamental problem we are facing is global warming ... one of the key impacts of global warming is climate change ...
i suggest you go read one of the many websites that explains global warming ... this is what i find frustrating ... people sit there in denial and yet they don't even bother to find out the facts ...
more people have died recently due to flooding in the phillipines ... insurance rates are gonna go up here in Toronto due to recent flooding ... island nations are planning full scale relocation because of rising sea levels ...
all this for a problem we can EASILY fix with absolutely very little cost ... but yet - we sit here in 2013 continuing to argue over it's existence ...
all this for a problem we can EASILY fix with absolutely very little cost ...
beside getting a grip on polution how can we control climate change ? no offence man but that is a tall order.
I don't want to wade in on the climate change argument because it blows my mind that it is an argument. However, the other thread got locked before I could point out the polar bears are not, in fact, thriving.
Why would we need, say, 150 or 200 years of study when the causes of anthropogenic climate change/global warming did not exist 150 or 200 years ago? We've had plenty of time to study the affects of humans on the environment. We can continue to collect data but without taking action to reduce our impact we are only making things worse-- and exponentially so.
I think the basic idea behind those who aren't convinced is that humans had no weather studies before the effects of industrialization, so basically the testing or experimentation has no control. so the only variables we can study are those that are post-pollution, which is a biased basis for analysis.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
all this for a problem we can EASILY fix with absolutely very little cost ...
beside getting a grip on polution how can we control climate change ? no offence man but that is a tall order.
Godfather.
well ... what we are currently experiencing is the impact of the shit we did like 30 years ago ... it's only gonna get worse ...
we can easily cut our emissions down ... scientists believe a reduction of concentration of ghg to 350 ppm will help mitigate a lot of the problems ... that's easy ... don't let well funded lobbyists tell you otherwise ... we haven't needed the gasoline car for a long time ... we live in a society of waste and excess ... because we do not pay the true cost of our consumption people think it's free or without consequence ...
everyone here could eat the cheapest food everyday and save money ... but they will die sooner because of health consequences ... that is how we are treating our planet now ...
I think the basic idea behind those who aren't convinced is that humans had no weather studies before the effects of industrialization, so basically the testing or experimentation has no control. so the only variables we can study are those that are post-pollution, which is a biased basis for analysis.
but fundamentally speaking it is irrelevant in the science ... the only issue with the historical data is if it shows any significant correlation ... and it does ...
all this for a problem we can EASILY fix with absolutely very little cost ...
beside getting a grip on polution how can we control climate change ? no offence man but that is a tall order.
Godfather.
well ... what we are currently experiencing is the impact of the shit we did like 30 years ago ... it's only gonna get worse ...
we can easily cut our emissions down ... scientists believe a reduction of concentration of ghg to 350 ppm will help mitigate a lot of the problems ... that's easy ... don't let well funded lobbyists tell you otherwise ... we haven't needed the gasoline car for a long time ... we live in a society of waste and excess ... because we do not pay the true cost of our consumption people think it's free or without consequence ...
everyone here could eat the cheapest food everyday and save money ... but they will die sooner because of health consequences ... that is how we are treating our planet now ...
there is no argument that our planet is wasted with polution and I'm not taking a side here on the issue but my thought was that our planet has been experianceing climate change for millions of years before the inusterial age,climate change that lowered and raised the ocean levels,volcanos that caused whole cities to die and be burried under ash and volcaic mud,we have had mini ice ages right here in America and Canada also I believe, there has been a host of desasters caused by climate changes from the very beginning I'm sure.
I'm sure the polution has had an impact on human life but I'm not sure that it has caused climate change...meaning I really don't know if has or not,I've read things that say it has and others that say it has not(no not on Fox ) but with all that aside I agree that more should be done to stop or slow pollution but it's going to be a long road to change the way people have been living the past hundred years or so and I also see things being done now to help but I agree we need more.
more people have died recently due to flooding in the phillipines ... insurance rates are gonna go up here in Toronto due to recent flooding ... island nations are planning full scale relocation because of rising sea levels ...
all this for a problem we can EASILY fix with absolutely very little cost ... but yet - we sit here in 2013 continuing to argue over it's existence ...
Pointing out single events doesn't help make your case.
Again, I'm not arguing that the climate isn't changing. What I'm saying is I don't have much confidence in man's understanding of it. This does not mean I'm advocating continuing to do things that we THINK are harming the environment.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Why would we need, say, 150 or 200 years of study when the causes of anthropogenic climate change/global warming did not exist 150 or 200 years ago? We've had plenty of time to study the affects of humans on the environment. We can continue to collect data but without taking action to reduce our impact we are only making things worse-- and exponentially so.
I think the basic idea behind those who aren't convinced is that humans had no weather studies before the effects of industrialization, so basically the testing or experimentation has no control. so the only variables we can study are those that are post-pollution, which is a biased basis for analysis.
That is a much more intelligent way of stating what I was trying to say.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Pointing out single events doesn't help make your case.
Again, I'm not arguing that the climate isn't changing. What I'm saying is I don't have much confidence in man's understanding of it. This does not mean I'm advocating continuing to do things that we THINK are harming the environment.
of course it doesn't ... not to you ... you can't even bother to understand it ... but you're more than happy to be a skeptic ...
there is no argument that our planet is wasted with polution and I'm not taking a side here on the issue but my thought was that our planet has been experianceing climate change for millions of years before the inusterial age,climate change that lowered and raised the ocean levels,volcanos that caused whole cities to die and be burried under ash and volcaic mud,we have had mini ice ages right here in America and Canada also I believe, there has been a host of desasters caused by climate changes from the very beginning I'm sure.
I'm sure the polution has had an impact on human life but I'm not sure that it has caused climate change...meaning I really don't know if has or not,I've read things that say it has and others that say it has not(no not on Fox ) but with all that aside I agree that more should be done to stop or slow pollution but it's going to be a long road to change the way people have been living the past hundred years or so and I also see things being done now to help but I agree we need more.
Godfather.
see ... the thing is ... all your concerns and issues have been dealt with ... the natural variability of the climate ... this is not what is being debated at the scientific level ...
only through continued misinformation and the unwillingness or inability of people to learn is there a debate still ...
it is the single biggest issue that will cause suffering in the world today ... moreso than war, disease and anything else ... but it is still the least understood issue ... it's tragic that in this day and age when it would take less than 15 minutes to learn about it we are still arguing over it's cause ...
there is no argument that our planet is wasted with polution and I'm not taking a side here on the issue but my thought was that our planet has been experianceing climate change for millions of years before the inusterial age,climate change that lowered and raised the ocean levels,volcanos that caused whole cities to die and be burried under ash and volcaic mud,we have had mini ice ages right here in America and Canada also I believe, there has been a host of desasters caused by climate changes from the very beginning I'm sure.
I'm sure the polution has had an impact on human life but I'm not sure that it has caused climate change...meaning I really don't know if has or not,I've read things that say it has and others that say it has not(no not on Fox ) but with all that aside I agree that more should be done to stop or slow pollution but it's going to be a long road to change the way people have been living the past hundred years or so and I also see things being done now to help but I agree we need more.
Godfather.
see ... the thing is ... all your concerns and issues have been dealt with ... the natural variability of the climate ... this is not what is being debated at the scientific level ...
only through continued misinformation and the unwillingness or inability of people to learn is there a debate still ...
it is the single biggest issue that will cause suffering in the world today ... moreso than war, disease and anything else ... but it is still the least understood issue ... it's tragic that in this day and age when it would take less than 15 minutes to learn about it we are still arguing over it's cause ...
I see no use for an argument or a debate,even if pollution didn't cause further climate change the fact remains that we are still heavaly polluted and that alone causes health issues and that should be enough for us to keep fighting pollution by it's self.
I see no use for an argument or a debate,even if pollution didn't cause further climate change the fact remains that we are still heavaly polluted and that alone causes health issues and that should be enough for us to keep fighting pollution by it's self.
Godfather.
right ... but what do you consider pollution!? ... are you prepared to drive less? ... use energy efficient appliances? ... conserve energy? ...
I see no use for an argument or a debate,even if pollution didn't cause further climate change the fact remains that we are still heavaly polluted and that alone causes health issues and that should be enough for us to keep fighting pollution by it's self.
Godfather.
right ... but what do you consider pollution!? ... are you prepared to drive less? ... use energy efficient appliances? ... conserve energy? ...
believe it or not....my entire (small)house is fitted with energy saving light bulbs,double pain energy saving glass windows,and some other stuff as well and as of right now my motor cycle is my only transpo...our truck is a 4 cylinder amd my son's 2000 BMW(old and tattered) is a 6 cyl that gets great mpg so yes we try with what we are able to afford and I'll admit for me anything that will save a buck in the long or short run gets my attention
what do I consider pollution ? anything that is added to the earth and air that has a negitive impact but......I like most working Americans understand that there are choices..hard choices that must be made but still with these choices eco frendly ideas to help lessen or even eleminate most,some or all the negitive impact during some of these operations.
believe it or not....my entire (small)house is fitted with energy saving light bulbs,double pain energy saving glass windows,and some other stuff as well and as of right now my motor cycle is my only transpo...our truck is a 4 cylinder amd my son's 2000 BMW(old and tattered) is a 6 cyl that gets great mpg so yes we try with what we are able to afford and I'll admit for me anything that will save a buck in the long or short run gets my attention
what do I consider pollution ? anything that is added to the earth and air that has a negitive impact but......I like most working Americans understand that there are choices..hard choices that must be made but still with these choices eco frendly ideas to help lessen or even eleminate most,some or all the negitive impact during some of these operations.
Godfather.
that's very reasonable ... save as much money as you can then! ...
Why would we need, say, 150 or 200 years of study when the causes of anthropogenic climate change/global warming did not exist 150 or 200 years ago? We've had plenty of time to study the affects of humans on the environment. We can continue to collect data but without taking action to reduce our impact we are only making things worse-- and exponentially so.
I think the basic idea behind those who aren't convinced is that humans had no weather studies before the effects of industrialization, so basically the testing or experimentation has no control. so the only variables we can study are those that are post-pollution, which is a biased basis for analysis.
Except you can look back further then recorded weather history. Scientists have been collecting trapped air from Glaciers and core samples which they can date. All evidence points to dramatic human induced climate change.
Why would we need, say, 150 or 200 years of study when the causes of anthropogenic climate change/global warming did not exist 150 or 200 years ago? We've had plenty of time to study the affects of humans on the environment. We can continue to collect data but without taking action to reduce our impact we are only making things worse-- and exponentially so.
I think the basic idea behind those who aren't convinced is that humans had no weather studies before the effects of industrialization, so basically the testing or experimentation has no control. so the only variables we can study are those that are post-pollution, which is a biased basis for analysis.
Except you can look back further then recorded weather history. Scientists have been collecting trapped air from Glaciers and core samples which they can date. All evidence points to dramatic human induced climate change.
see, this is the kind of stuff that's useful. not just the usual "my opinion is correct, but if you don't believe me, I won't say why, I'm going to tell you to look it up yourself!".
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
see, this is the kind of stuff that's useful. not just the usual "my opinion is correct, but if you don't believe me, I won't say why, I'm going to tell you to look it up yourself!".
if this is directed at me ... i will respond with this ...
i've been beating this topic for over a decade on these forums ... i have typed probably over 2,000 words on the subject alone ... posted a gazillion links ... you have to understand how frustrating it is to have people come here and post links from crap sources with no fundamental understanding of the issue ...
how can i debate an issue with someone if they don't understand the issue and see it simply as yet another topic of the partisan divide of which they've taken a side? ...
the time to be arguing the concept of AGW was a decade ago ... arguing about it today is like arguing the earth is flat ...
how can i debate an issue with someone if they don't understand the issue and see it simply as yet another topic of the partisan divide of which they've taken a side? ...
I think this type of generalization may be hurting your argument a bit.
I am not partisan at all. I try to distance myself from those miserably pathetic political parties in the US. I have no direct, vested financial interest in this discussion other than I don't like pollution or hurting the environment in general.
I don't listen to talk radio and for the most part I don't watch any network news stations (and if I happen to, I usually judge them very harshly for being deceptive and putting spin on what should be facts).
In my limited exposure (and limited brain power), I am simply skeptical that humans have the tools they need to adequately and precisely understand our full impact on the earth when we've really only been able to track reliable, far reaching data for what amounts to less than an eyeblink of the earth's history. And for that matter, the data we think is reliable and diverse today might look like junk a 100 years from now.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
if this is directed at me ... i will respond with this ...
i've been beating this topic for over a decade on these forums ... i have typed probably over 2,000 words on the subject alone ... posted a gazillion links ... you have to understand how frustrating it is to have people come here and post links from crap sources with no fundamental understanding of the issue ...
how can i debate an issue with someone if they don't understand the issue and see it simply as yet another topic of the partisan divide of which they've taken a side? ...
the time to be arguing the concept of AGW was a decade ago ... arguing about it today is like arguing the earth is flat ...
then why address the people who you seem to deem so inferior to you on the subject at all?
not everyone is as passionate about it as you and Brian are. if you really want to change people's minds and educate them, then do that. telling people how uneducated they are on the subject does nothing to help your cause. if you don't want to discuss the subject, then don't. but don't attack others because of their supposed lack of knowledge on the issue.
if engaging people on the issue makes you so mad, then it's simple. don't do it.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i've been beating this topic for over a decade on these forums ... i have typed probably over 2,000 words on the subject alone ... posted a gazillion links ... you have to understand how frustrating it is to have people come here and post links from crap sources with no fundamental understanding of the issue ...
how can i debate an issue with someone if they don't understand the issue and see it simply as yet another topic of the partisan divide of which they've taken a side? ...
the time to be arguing the concept of AGW was a decade ago ... arguing about it today is like arguing the earth is flat ...
Well said, polaris_x. I've done the same here and elsewhere. It seems that no matter how much information you put out there, no matter how many references and links we post- and not just quick Google searches, but periodicals, a variety of frequently read web sites, books, documentaries and study groups- the response from deniers is the same: "Give me more information".
So at some point it is quite appropriate for us to say, "Get out there and learn something on your own". Seriously, if you really care, go learn about the issue. It's not hard to find the information.
I'd also be so brazen to say it's time to stop the useless and fruitless bantering about the issue and well overdue for us to start taking action. At the very least:
--Recycle (my wife and I throw away at the most one cubic foot of trash per week. Everything else is recycled.
--Use less. Before making a purchase ask yourself, "Do I really need this?"
--Buy used and refurbished items.
--Buy durable items that last- avoid cheap crap.
--Drive less, car poll, ride share, take public transit, ride a bike and walk.
--Use energy efficient appliances.
--Plug your TV into a power strip and turn the strip off when not in use. TV's are energy vampires when plugged in but not turned on.
--Turn you computer off when not in use.
--Unplug charging devices when not in use. They're also energy vampires.
--Conserve water.
--Take shorter and fewer showers.
--Share what you have.
--Use less of everything- except kindness and courtesy toward others and your mind. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I see no use for an argument or a debate,even if pollution didn't cause further climate change the fact remains that we are still heavaly polluted and that alone causes health issues and that should be enough for us to keep fighting pollution by it's self.
Godfather.
right ... but what do you consider pollution!? ... are you prepared to drive less? ... use energy efficient appliances? ... conserve energy? ...
And this is my central point in my skepticism towards you. Your problems of fixing the climate issues are nothing but talking points from the left/liberals and green movements.
If you actually had anything of substance to say and an actual understanding of "the science" you would understand that these aren't REAL fixes, there just "more control" fixes.
Give me something of substance and solution and show me that you understand what you preach.
I think most people are aware of "climate change" but to state at which degree humans are involved is both false and "non" scientific.
I mean why not educate us all on the real fixes. You know like smart land management involving how we raise livestock, which can reverse damage done by industrialization and undo the growing desertification of the world, which is only furthering global warming.
Or what about artificial trees or (robot trees) which are 1000 times as effective as natural trees at taking carbon dioxide out of the environment.
These REAL solutions don't get looked at because it doesn't enrich a plethora of industries. (i.e. politics)
I see no use for an argument or a debate,even if pollution didn't cause further climate change the fact remains that we are still heavaly polluted and that alone causes health issues and that should be enough for us to keep fighting pollution by it's self.
Godfather.
right ... but what do you consider pollution!? ... are you prepared to drive less? ... use energy efficient appliances? ... conserve energy? ...
And this is my central point in my skepticism towards you. Your problems of fixing the climate issues are nothing but talking points from the left/liberals and green movements.
If you actually had anything of substance to say and an actual understanding of "the science" you would understand that these aren't REAL fixes, there just "more control" fixes.
Give me something of substance and solution and show me that you understand what you preach.
I think most people are aware of "climate change" but to state at which degree humans are involved is both false and "non" scientific.
I mean why not educate us all on the real fixes. You know like smart land management involving how we raise livestock, which can reverse damage done by industrialization and undo the growing desertification of the world, which is only furthering global warming.
Or what about artificial trees or (robot trees) which are 1000 times as effective as natural trees at taking carbon dioxide out of the environment.
These REAL solutions don't get looked at because it doesn't enrich a plethora of industries. (i.e. politics)
Have you tried the solutions I posted above?
And why do you limit the people concerned about climate change/global warming as "left/liberals and green movements". Do we have to have a label to care? Can't just ordinary caring and conscientious people car about the health of the world we live in?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
if this is directed at me ... i will respond with this ...
i've been beating this topic for over a decade on these forums ... i have typed probably over 2,000 words on the subject alone ... posted a gazillion links ... you have to understand how frustrating it is to have people come here and post links from crap sources with no fundamental understanding of the issue ...
how can i debate an issue with someone if they don't understand the issue and see it simply as yet another topic of the partisan divide of which they've taken a side? ...
the time to be arguing the concept of AGW was a decade ago ... arguing about it today is like arguing the earth is flat ...
then why address the people who you seem to deem so inferior to you on the subject at all?
Hes getting frustrated because you can only say "look up the science" in so many ways before you actually have to back it up.
not everyone is as passionate about it as you and Brian are. if you really want to change people's minds and educate them, then do that. telling people how uneducated they are on the subject does nothing to help your cause. if you don't want to discuss the subject, then don't. but don't attack others because of their supposed lack of knowledge on the issue.
if engaging people on the issue makes you so mad, then it's simple. don't do it.
Comments
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
china is definitely the biggest polluter and a huge contributor but they are starting to recognize the impacts of their industrialization ... asia has suffered some of the more tragic consequences of global warming to date ... and now china is spending significant money on renewables ...
but have you studied the basic science and come to that conclusion or do you just say that!? ... this earth is old thing and we can't possibly understand it is like the go to play for the people who's sole purpose is to continue to keep people in the dark about global warming ...
on another note - it at least seems like people see that the climate is indeed changing ... so, now, it's really just a matter of believing the cause ... i also get that when this debate started ... many people were on the other side and it's patently hard for people to admit being wrong and so they hold out for as long as possible ...
I know basic science principles would admit that 30 years of study (of maybe 100 years of accurate data at most) is not enough to make accurate conclusions of a planet as old as ours.
But no - I have not studied the basic climate change science....although I have observed that it's not called global warming anymore and that the hole in the ozone has gone away (or at least isn't mentioned).
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Why would we need, say, 150 or 200 years of study when the causes of anthropogenic climate change/global warming did not exist 150 or 200 years ago? We've had plenty of time to study the affects of humans on the environment. We can continue to collect data but without taking action to reduce our impact we are only making things worse-- and exponentially so.
the whole global warming / climate change thing is yet another fiasco ... it is global warming ... the fundamental problem we are facing is global warming ... one of the key impacts of global warming is climate change ...
i suggest you go read one of the many websites that explains global warming ... this is what i find frustrating ... people sit there in denial and yet they don't even bother to find out the facts ...
more people have died recently due to flooding in the phillipines ... insurance rates are gonna go up here in Toronto due to recent flooding ... island nations are planning full scale relocation because of rising sea levels ...
all this for a problem we can EASILY fix with absolutely very little cost ... but yet - we sit here in 2013 continuing to argue over it's existence ...
all this for a problem we can EASILY fix with absolutely very little cost ...
beside getting a grip on polution how can we control climate change ? no offence man but that is a tall order.
Godfather.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... a-rug?lite
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I think the basic idea behind those who aren't convinced is that humans had no weather studies before the effects of industrialization, so basically the testing or experimentation has no control. so the only variables we can study are those that are post-pollution, which is a biased basis for analysis.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
well ... what we are currently experiencing is the impact of the shit we did like 30 years ago ... it's only gonna get worse ...
we can easily cut our emissions down ... scientists believe a reduction of concentration of ghg to 350 ppm will help mitigate a lot of the problems ... that's easy ... don't let well funded lobbyists tell you otherwise ... we haven't needed the gasoline car for a long time ... we live in a society of waste and excess ... because we do not pay the true cost of our consumption people think it's free or without consequence ...
everyone here could eat the cheapest food everyday and save money ... but they will die sooner because of health consequences ... that is how we are treating our planet now ...
but fundamentally speaking it is irrelevant in the science ... the only issue with the historical data is if it shows any significant correlation ... and it does ...
there is no argument that our planet is wasted with polution and I'm not taking a side here on the issue but my thought was that our planet has been experianceing climate change for millions of years before the inusterial age,climate change that lowered and raised the ocean levels,volcanos that caused whole cities to die and be burried under ash and volcaic mud,we have had mini ice ages right here in America and Canada also I believe, there has been a host of desasters caused by climate changes from the very beginning I'm sure.
I'm sure the polution has had an impact on human life but I'm not sure that it has caused climate change...meaning I really don't know if has or not,I've read things that say it has and others that say it has not(no not on Fox
Godfather.
Pointing out single events doesn't help make your case.
Again, I'm not arguing that the climate isn't changing. What I'm saying is I don't have much confidence in man's understanding of it. This does not mean I'm advocating continuing to do things that we THINK are harming the environment.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That is a much more intelligent way of stating what I was trying to say.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
of course it doesn't ... not to you ... you can't even bother to understand it ... but you're more than happy to be a skeptic ...
see ... the thing is ... all your concerns and issues have been dealt with ... the natural variability of the climate ... this is not what is being debated at the scientific level ...
only through continued misinformation and the unwillingness or inability of people to learn is there a debate still ...
it is the single biggest issue that will cause suffering in the world today ... moreso than war, disease and anything else ... but it is still the least understood issue ... it's tragic that in this day and age when it would take less than 15 minutes to learn about it we are still arguing over it's cause ...
Godfather.
right ... but what do you consider pollution!? ... are you prepared to drive less? ... use energy efficient appliances? ... conserve energy? ...
believe it or not....my entire (small)house is fitted with energy saving light bulbs,double pain energy saving glass windows,and some other stuff as well and as of right now my motor cycle is my only transpo...our truck is a 4 cylinder amd my son's 2000 BMW(old and tattered) is a 6 cyl that gets great mpg so yes we try with what we are able to afford and I'll admit for me anything that will save a buck in the long or short run gets my attention
what do I consider pollution ? anything that is added to the earth and air that has a negitive impact but......I like most working Americans understand that there are choices..hard choices that must be made but still with these choices eco frendly ideas to help lessen or even eleminate most,some or all the negitive impact during some of these operations.
Godfather.
that's very reasonable ... save as much money as you can then! ...
Except you can look back further then recorded weather history. Scientists have been collecting trapped air from Glaciers and core samples which they can date. All evidence points to dramatic human induced climate change.
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8343.full.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/qu ... imate.html
see, this is the kind of stuff that's useful. not just the usual "my opinion is correct, but if you don't believe me, I won't say why, I'm going to tell you to look it up yourself!".
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
if this is directed at me ... i will respond with this ...
i've been beating this topic for over a decade on these forums ... i have typed probably over 2,000 words on the subject alone ... posted a gazillion links ... you have to understand how frustrating it is to have people come here and post links from crap sources with no fundamental understanding of the issue ...
how can i debate an issue with someone if they don't understand the issue and see it simply as yet another topic of the partisan divide of which they've taken a side? ...
the time to be arguing the concept of AGW was a decade ago ... arguing about it today is like arguing the earth is flat ...
I think this type of generalization may be hurting your argument a bit.
I am not partisan at all. I try to distance myself from those miserably pathetic political parties in the US. I have no direct, vested financial interest in this discussion other than I don't like pollution or hurting the environment in general.
I don't listen to talk radio and for the most part I don't watch any network news stations (and if I happen to, I usually judge them very harshly for being deceptive and putting spin on what should be facts).
In my limited exposure (and limited brain power), I am simply skeptical that humans have the tools they need to adequately and precisely understand our full impact on the earth when we've really only been able to track reliable, far reaching data for what amounts to less than an eyeblink of the earth's history. And for that matter, the data we think is reliable and diverse today might look like junk a 100 years from now.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
then why address the people who you seem to deem so inferior to you on the subject at all?
not everyone is as passionate about it as you and Brian are. if you really want to change people's minds and educate them, then do that. telling people how uneducated they are on the subject does nothing to help your cause. if you don't want to discuss the subject, then don't. but don't attack others because of their supposed lack of knowledge on the issue.
if engaging people on the issue makes you so mad, then it's simple. don't do it.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Well said, polaris_x. I've done the same here and elsewhere. It seems that no matter how much information you put out there, no matter how many references and links we post- and not just quick Google searches, but periodicals, a variety of frequently read web sites, books, documentaries and study groups- the response from deniers is the same: "Give me more information".
So at some point it is quite appropriate for us to say, "Get out there and learn something on your own". Seriously, if you really care, go learn about the issue. It's not hard to find the information.
I'd also be so brazen to say it's time to stop the useless and fruitless bantering about the issue and well overdue for us to start taking action. At the very least:
--Recycle (my wife and I throw away at the most one cubic foot of trash per week. Everything else is recycled.
--Use less. Before making a purchase ask yourself, "Do I really need this?"
--Buy used and refurbished items.
--Buy durable items that last- avoid cheap crap.
--Drive less, car poll, ride share, take public transit, ride a bike and walk.
--Use energy efficient appliances.
--Plug your TV into a power strip and turn the strip off when not in use. TV's are energy vampires when plugged in but not turned on.
--Turn you computer off when not in use.
--Unplug charging devices when not in use. They're also energy vampires.
--Conserve water.
--Take shorter and fewer showers.
--Share what you have.
--Use less of everything- except kindness and courtesy toward others and your mind. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
If you actually had anything of substance to say and an actual understanding of "the science" you would understand that these aren't REAL fixes, there just "more control" fixes.
Give me something of substance and solution and show me that you understand what you preach.
I think most people are aware of "climate change" but to state at which degree humans are involved is both false and "non" scientific.
I mean why not educate us all on the real fixes. You know like smart land management involving how we raise livestock, which can reverse damage done by industrialization and undo the growing desertification of the world, which is only furthering global warming.
Or what about artificial trees or (robot trees) which are 1000 times as effective as natural trees at taking carbon dioxide out of the environment.
These REAL solutions don't get looked at because it doesn't enrich a plethora of industries. (i.e. politics)
Have you tried the solutions I posted above?
And why do you limit the people concerned about climate change/global warming as "left/liberals and green movements". Do we have to have a label to care? Can't just ordinary caring and conscientious people car about the health of the world we live in?