Global warming

1141517192029

Comments

  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    BS44325 said:

    eddiec said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    Actually, a lot of people say climate change is not happening.
    BS44325 said:

    brianlux said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
    A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.
    Scientists are only trying to tell us 'scientifically' what we can see with are own eyes. Humans are destroying this planet and anyone who argues with that is just blind. Yes the earth has gone through heating/cooling cycles but never at this rate.

    In the near future when the earth is a different place our grandchildren are going to look back and say 'They fucking knew and they did nothing.'

    There is evidence that humans impact this planet but no evidence that "humans are destroying this planet". That is a statement of emotion and not fact.
    Really...you think we're not destroying this planet?
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,033
    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    eddiec said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    Actually, a lot of people say climate change is not happening.
    BS44325 said:

    brianlux said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
    A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.
    Scientists are only trying to tell us 'scientifically' what we can see with are own eyes. Humans are destroying this planet and anyone who argues with that is just blind. Yes the earth has gone through heating/cooling cycles but never at this rate.

    In the near future when the earth is a different place our grandchildren are going to look back and say 'They fucking knew and they did nothing.'

    There is evidence that humans impact this planet but no evidence that "humans are destroying this planet". That is a statement of emotion and not fact.
    Really...you think we're not destroying this planet?
    We don't have the capacity to destroy this planet. Only an interstellar event can do that. Look at the region surrounding the Chernoble disaster. That was a man made event of the worst kind yet many years later it has been repopulated with an abundance of wildlife. Life has the ability to adapt and even thrive in what would be considered the most inhabitable of places. It's evolution baby.
  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    eddiec said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    Actually, a lot of people say climate change is not happening.
    BS44325 said:

    brianlux said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
    A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.
    Scientists are only trying to tell us 'scientifically' what we can see with are own eyes. Humans are destroying this planet and anyone who argues with that is just blind. Yes the earth has gone through heating/cooling cycles but never at this rate.

    In the near future when the earth is a different place our grandchildren are going to look back and say 'They fucking knew and they did nothing.'

    There is evidence that humans impact this planet but no evidence that "humans are destroying this planet". That is a statement of emotion and not fact.
    Really...you think we're not destroying this planet?
    We don't have the capacity to destroy this planet. Only an interstellar event can do that. Look at the region surrounding the Chernoble disaster. That was a man made event of the worst kind yet many years later it has been repopulated with an abundance of wildlife. Life has the ability to adapt and even thrive in what would be considered the most inhabitable of places. It's evolution baby.
    Really, so when are you inhabiting Cernoble ... After all its full of life.
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,033
    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    eddiec said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    Actually, a lot of people say climate change is not happening.
    BS44325 said:

    brianlux said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
    A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.
    Scientists are only trying to tell us 'scientifically' what we can see with are own eyes. Humans are destroying this planet and anyone who argues with that is just blind. Yes the earth has gone through heating/cooling cycles but never at this rate.

    In the near future when the earth is a different place our grandchildren are going to look back and say 'They fucking knew and they did nothing.'

    There is evidence that humans impact this planet but no evidence that "humans are destroying this planet". That is a statement of emotion and not fact.
    Really...you think we're not destroying this planet?
    We don't have the capacity to destroy this planet. Only an interstellar event can do that. Look at the region surrounding the Chernoble disaster. That was a man made event of the worst kind yet many years later it has been repopulated with an abundance of wildlife. Life has the ability to adapt and even thrive in what would be considered the most inhabitable of places. It's evolution baby.
    Really, so when are you inhabiting Cernoble ... After all its full of life.
    Probably not but that still doesn't change the fact that life will always find a way. Choose your man-made and/or natural disaster and I'll show you an ecosystem that with time regenerated.
  • eddieceddiec Posts: 3,263
    edited May 2016
    BS44325 said:



    We don't have the capacity to destroy this planet. Only an interstellar event can do that. Look at the region surrounding the Chernoble disaster. That was a man made event of the worst kind yet many years later it has been repopulated with an abundance of wildlife. Life has the ability to adapt and even thrive in what would be considered the most inhabitable of places. It's evolution baby.

    You're right. The planet would eventually recover from global nuclear war. BUT we are destroying the planet to a point where humanity will be unable to exist.

    Also, the animals in Chernobyl are highly radioactive from feeding on the plant life.

    Post edited by eddiec on
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,556
    someone still arguing the "we can't destroy the planet semantics"!??

    really - at this stage not worth engaging ...
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,033
    eddiec said:


    BS44325 said:



    We don't have the capacity to destroy this planet. Only an interstellar event can do that. Look at the region surrounding the Chernoble disaster. That was a man made event of the worst kind yet many years later it has been repopulated with an abundance of wildlife. Life has the ability to adapt and even thrive in what would be considered the most inhabitable of places. It's evolution baby.

    You're right. The planet would eventually recover from global nuclear war. BUT we are destroying the planet to a point where humanity will be unable to exist.

    Also, the animals in Chernobyl are highly radioactive from feeding on the plant life.

    We are not destroying the planet to a point where humanity will be unable to exist. Again that is a statement of emotion and not fact. Humans have actually learned to improve the environment within which they live. The positive changes we have made since the industrial revolution have been tremendous. Of course we are not perfect but we are far from destroying the planet.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,033
    polaris_x said:

    someone still arguing the "we can't destroy the planet semantics"!??

    really - at this stage not worth engaging ...

    I gracefully accept the terms of your surrender!
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,080
    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    eddiec said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    Actually, a lot of people say climate change is not happening.
    BS44325 said:

    brianlux said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
    A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.
    Scientists are only trying to tell us 'scientifically' what we can see with are own eyes. Humans are destroying this planet and anyone who argues with that is just blind. Yes the earth has gone through heating/cooling cycles but never at this rate.

    In the near future when the earth is a different place our grandchildren are going to look back and say 'They fucking knew and they did nothing.'

    There is evidence that humans impact this planet but no evidence that "humans are destroying this planet". That is a statement of emotion and not fact.
    Really...you think we're not destroying this planet?
    We don't have the capacity to destroy this planet. Only an interstellar event can do that. Look at the region surrounding the Chernoble disaster. That was a man made event of the worst kind yet many years later it has been repopulated with an abundance of wildlife. Life has the ability to adapt and even thrive in what would be considered the most inhabitable of places. It's evolution baby.
    Really, so when are you inhabiting Cernoble ... After all its full of life.
    Probably not but that still doesn't change the fact that life will always find a way. Choose your man-made and/or natural disaster and I'll show you an ecosystem that with time regenerated.
    Tell that to the 322 species of animals that have gone extinct in the last 500 years specifically because of human destruction, and the hundreds of others that are threatened by human acts. Those species aren't going to regenerate.
    http://news.discovery.com/animals/endangered-species/human-caused-322-animal-extinctions-in-past-500-years-140724.htm

    Surely you know that when people talking about human destroying the planet they aren't talking about the Earth actually exploding or something, right? They mean that people will make it uninhabitable for themselves and many other animals, with a long long period of misery before that.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,033
    PJ_Soul said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    eddiec said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    Actually, a lot of people say climate change is not happening.
    BS44325 said:

    brianlux said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
    A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.
    Scientists are only trying to tell us 'scientifically' what we can see with are own eyes. Humans are destroying this planet and anyone who argues with that is just blind. Yes the earth has gone through heating/cooling cycles but never at this rate.

    In the near future when the earth is a different place our grandchildren are going to look back and say 'They fucking knew and they did nothing.'

    There is evidence that humans impact this planet but no evidence that "humans are destroying this planet". That is a statement of emotion and not fact.
    Really...you think we're not destroying this planet?
    We don't have the capacity to destroy this planet. Only an interstellar event can do that. Look at the region surrounding the Chernoble disaster. That was a man made event of the worst kind yet many years later it has been repopulated with an abundance of wildlife. Life has the ability to adapt and even thrive in what would be considered the most inhabitable of places. It's evolution baby.
    Really, so when are you inhabiting Cernoble ... After all its full of life.
    Probably not but that still doesn't change the fact that life will always find a way. Choose your man-made and/or natural disaster and I'll show you an ecosystem that with time regenerated.
    Tell that to the 322 species of animals that have gone extinct in the last 500 years specifically because of human destruction, and the hundreds of others that are threatened by human acts. Those species aren't going to regenerate.
    http://news.discovery.com/animals/endangered-species/human-caused-322-animal-extinctions-in-past-500-years-140724.htm

    Surely you know that when people talking about human destroying the planet they aren't talking about the Earth actually exploding or something, right? They mean that people will make it uninhabitable for themselves and many other animals, with a long long period of misery before that.
    I don't know what different people mean when they talk about human's destroying the planet. Some mean it the way you do and other's feel differently. I am glad that you agree with me however that we do not have the capacity to destroy the planet.

    Now with respect to your second point on whether we are making this planet uninhabitable I generally disagree with that as well. Certainly in the past we have been responsible for the extinction of species but over the last 50 years we have become far more cognizant of our impact on our environment and have worked tirelessly to avoid future extinctions. In some instances we have actually allowed for certain animal populations to regenerate. Again there is no current evidence that our emissions are making this planet uninhabitable. There are theories and models but NO evidence. You are making statements of emotion but not fact.
  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    polaris_x said:

    someone still arguing the "we can't destroy the planet semantics"!??

    really - at this stage not worth engaging ...

    It's is ... I was not so convinced at one time. But I definitely hear what you are saying.
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    BS44325 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    eddiec said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    Actually, a lot of people say climate change is not happening.
    BS44325 said:

    brianlux said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
    A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.
    Scientists are only trying to tell us 'scientifically' what we can see with are own eyes. Humans are destroying this planet and anyone who argues with that is just blind. Yes the earth has gone through heating/cooling cycles but never at this rate.

    In the near future when the earth is a different place our grandchildren are going to look back and say 'They fucking knew and they did nothing.'

    There is evidence that humans impact this planet but no evidence that "humans are destroying this planet". That is a statement of emotion and not fact.
    Really...you think we're not destroying this planet?
    We don't have the capacity to destroy this planet. Only an interstellar event can do that. Look at the region surrounding the Chernoble disaster. That was a man made event of the worst kind yet many years later it has been repopulated with an abundance of wildlife. Life has the ability to adapt and even thrive in what would be considered the most inhabitable of places. It's evolution baby.
    Really, so when are you inhabiting Cernoble ... After all its full of life.
    Probably not but that still doesn't change the fact that life will always find a way. Choose your man-made and/or natural disaster and I'll show you an ecosystem that with time regenerated.
    Tell that to the 322 species of animals that have gone extinct in the last 500 years specifically because of human destruction, and the hundreds of others that are threatened by human acts. Those species aren't going to regenerate.
    http://news.discovery.com/animals/endangered-species/human-caused-322-animal-extinctions-in-past-500-years-140724.htm

    Surely you know that when people talking about human destroying the planet they aren't talking about the Earth actually exploding or something, right? They mean that people will make it uninhabitable for themselves and many other animals, with a long long period of misery before that.
    I don't know what different people mean when they talk about human's destroying the planet. Some mean it the way you do and other's feel differently. I am glad that you agree with me however that we do not have the capacity to destroy the planet.

    Now with respect to your second point on whether we are making this planet uninhabitable I generally disagree with that as well. Certainly in the past we have been responsible for the extinction of species but over the last 50 years we have become far more cognizant of our impact on our environment and have worked tirelessly to avoid future extinctions. In some instances we have actually allowed for certain animal populations to regenerate. Again there is no current evidence that our emissions are making this planet uninhabitable. There are theories and models but NO evidence. You are making statements of emotion but not fact.
    Why don't you suck on the tailpipe of a car daily ... let us know how you feel.
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    How does anyone know for sure if we make this planet uninhabitable that it will regenerate this time?
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,033
    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    eddiec said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    Actually, a lot of people say climate change is not happening.
    BS44325 said:

    brianlux said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    Weather isn't climate until it is

    Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.
    I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol

    Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
    And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
    Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??
    Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
    Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
    A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
    A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.
    Scientists are only trying to tell us 'scientifically' what we can see with are own eyes. Humans are destroying this planet and anyone who argues with that is just blind. Yes the earth has gone through heating/cooling cycles but never at this rate.

    In the near future when the earth is a different place our grandchildren are going to look back and say 'They fucking knew and they did nothing.'

    There is evidence that humans impact this planet but no evidence that "humans are destroying this planet". That is a statement of emotion and not fact.
    Really...you think we're not destroying this planet?
    We don't have the capacity to destroy this planet. Only an interstellar event can do that. Look at the region surrounding the Chernoble disaster. That was a man made event of the worst kind yet many years later it has been repopulated with an abundance of wildlife. Life has the ability to adapt and even thrive in what would be considered the most inhabitable of places. It's evolution baby.
    Really, so when are you inhabiting Cernoble ... After all its full of life.
    Probably not but that still doesn't change the fact that life will always find a way. Choose your man-made and/or natural disaster and I'll show you an ecosystem that with time regenerated.
    Tell that to the 322 species of animals that have gone extinct in the last 500 years specifically because of human destruction, and the hundreds of others that are threatened by human acts. Those species aren't going to regenerate.
    http://news.discovery.com/animals/endangered-species/human-caused-322-animal-extinctions-in-past-500-years-140724.htm

    Surely you know that when people talking about human destroying the planet they aren't talking about the Earth actually exploding or something, right? They mean that people will make it uninhabitable for themselves and many other animals, with a long long period of misery before that.
    I don't know what different people mean when they talk about human's destroying the planet. Some mean it the way you do and other's feel differently. I am glad that you agree with me however that we do not have the capacity to destroy the planet.

    Now with respect to your second point on whether we are making this planet uninhabitable I generally disagree with that as well. Certainly in the past we have been responsible for the extinction of species but over the last 50 years we have become far more cognizant of our impact on our environment and have worked tirelessly to avoid future extinctions. In some instances we have actually allowed for certain animal populations to regenerate. Again there is no current evidence that our emissions are making this planet uninhabitable. There are theories and models but NO evidence. You are making statements of emotion but not fact.
    Why don't you suck on the tailpipe of a car daily ... let us know how you feel.
    The science shows that a direct daily dosage of exhaust straight to my lungs will likely kill me. However the same amount of exhaust diluted and dissolved through the atmosphere will have no ill effects.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    edited May 2016
    lukin2006 said:

    How does anyone know for sure if we make this planet uninhabitable that it will regenerate this time?

    at one time the earth was uninhabitable for certain life forms.. humans for instance. but with time she became habitable for humans and a whole lot of other species. nature is cyclic. I have no doubt some time in the future long after ive return to the forest floor that earth will again become uninhabitable for humans. what will take our place, who knows? maybe it will become planet of the apes... maybe it won't. but what I heard this morning is that every tree takes 1 kilo of carbon out of the atmosphere every day, we are releasing more carbon into the atmosphere while at the same time removing more trees daily... that doesn't sound like an equation that can sustain life as we know it to me. the industrial revolution was the worst thing to happen to this planet in human history, though t worked out tremendously well for those captains of industry. fossil fuels are in that form for a reason and its got nothing to do with providing fuel for arrogant humans. we burn the earths waste, we burn the earth... figuratively and literally. we need to be kinder to our mother, is that so much to ask? you push her too far as she will push back.

    or maybe its just a case of us thinking we are so important to existence that we can kill the earth.. we kill each other with ease so why not the earth... afterall none of us will be here to reap the whirlwind will we?


    Post edited by catefrances on
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,080
    Okay BS, so forget about the Earth being uninhabitable for second.... What is the point of your point? Inhabitable or not, climate change or not, doesn't everyone want the Earth to be as clean as humanly possible?? That's what I don't get about climate change deniers or those trying to downplay the ill effects that humans have on the Earth. What exactly is their end goal? To say that they don't think we have to work at reducing pollution as much as we possibly can? That they don't really want a clean earth with clean, drinkable water and for animal species to survive and thrive as much as they want corporations to keep raking in the cash? If that is the the point, and frankly I don't see how it couldn't be, whether they care to admit it or not, that is rather horrific and makes no sense to me. I feel like EVERYONE should be on board with the idea that we have to reduce pollution and emissions at the rate that the most hardcore environmentalists are calling for, whether they believe in climate change or not.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,033
    PJ_Soul said:

    Okay BS, so forget about the Earth being uninhabitable for second.... What is the point of your point? Inhabitable or not, climate change or not, doesn't everyone want the Earth to be as clean as humanly possible?? That's what I don't get about climate change deniers or those trying to downplay the ill effects that humans have on the Earth. What exactly is their end goal? To say that they don't think we have to work at reducing pollution as much as we possibly can? That they don't really want a clean earth with clean, drinkable water and for animal species to survive and thrive as much as they want corporations to keep raking in the cash? If that is the the point, and frankly I don't see how it couldn't be, whether they care to admit it or not, that is rather horrific and makes no sense to me. I feel like EVERYONE should be on board with the idea that we have to reduce pollution and emissions at the rate that the most hardcore environmentalists are calling for, whether they believe in climate change or not.

    Finally we get to the point!

    Of course we all want a cleaner earth but your suggestion that to do this EVERYONE should be on board with what the most hardcore environmentalists are calling for is simply incorrect. We do not have unlimited resources to tackle every problem. We should be focusing on solvable problems that we can actually be effective in confronting. Improved drinking water? I'm on board. Reducing pollution? I'm on board. Climate change? I'm out. It is not a problem we even come close to understanding and the only non-solution that is currently on the table is to cripple the energy industry. This will have no measurable impact on the climate yet will absolutely hurt the economy and punish the poorest among us. This is what I don't get about climate change believers...they want a cleaner earth yet put all their focus on a theoretical problem.
  • Saying "I feel like EVERYONE should be on board with the idea that we have to reduce pollution and emissions at the rate that the most hardcore environmentalists are calling for, whether they believe in climate change or not."
    is akin to saying I believe in god you should as well.
  • eddieceddiec Posts: 3,263

    Saying "I feel like EVERYONE should be on board with the idea that we have to reduce pollution and emissions at the rate that the most hardcore environmentalists are calling for, whether they believe in climate change or not."
    is akin to saying I believe in god you should as well.

    No. Climate change is scientific.

  • eddieceddiec Posts: 3,263
    BS44325 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    Okay BS, so forget about the Earth being uninhabitable for second.... What is the point of your point? Inhabitable or not, climate change or not, doesn't everyone want the Earth to be as clean as humanly possible?? That's what I don't get about climate change deniers or those trying to downplay the ill effects that humans have on the Earth. What exactly is their end goal? To say that they don't think we have to work at reducing pollution as much as we possibly can? That they don't really want a clean earth with clean, drinkable water and for animal species to survive and thrive as much as they want corporations to keep raking in the cash? If that is the the point, and frankly I don't see how it couldn't be, whether they care to admit it or not, that is rather horrific and makes no sense to me. I feel like EVERYONE should be on board with the idea that we have to reduce pollution and emissions at the rate that the most hardcore environmentalists are calling for, whether they believe in climate change or not.

    Finally we get to the point!

    Of course we all want a cleaner earth but your suggestion that to do this EVERYONE should be on board with what the most hardcore environmentalists are calling for is simply incorrect. We do not have unlimited resources to tackle every problem. We should be focusing on solvable problems that we can actually be effective in confronting. Improved drinking water? I'm on board. Reducing pollution? I'm on board. Climate change? I'm out. It is not a problem we even come close to understanding and the only non-solution that is currently on the table is to cripple the energy industry. This will have no measurable impact on the climate yet will absolutely hurt the economy and punish the poorest among us. This is what I don't get about climate change believers...they want a cleaner earth yet put all their focus on a theoretical problem.
    Well luckily you are a part of a diminishing minority.

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,556
    PJ_Soul said:

    brianlux said:

    For any of you who are among the 30% of Americans (30%!!... only in America) who do not believe in global warming (can we stop wussing out by calling it "climate change?"):

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record

    I think climate change is a much more accurate description of what's happening, especially since climate is more than just temperature. "Global warming" can be a pretty misleading term IMO - one that has lead to some of the denial, actually.
    again ... nothing misleading about global warming ... just a lack of understanding of the science ...
  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    I have a question. I haven't been in school in quite some time ... so here's my question, Is the science behind global warming mandatory subject material from elementary school upon graduation of high school? Touching on the subject matter in each grade and having a mandatory course each year of high school in order to graduate. Or is their just not that much material to cover.
    To me it would seem if the future generations were better educated that might help at least going forward. I work in maintenance for a school board in Ontario and the students and staff do a poor job at recycling, conserving energy, turning off lights, opening windows when the air is running...you get the picture.

    I just don't see how this battle is winnable unless we get the educators on board.

    It seems to me everyone wants to fix the largest issues, but ignore the small issues when added up are detrimental to the cause as well.
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,033
    Here is some actual science for those who might be interested:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/16/climate-sensitivity-paper/

    We are learning more everyday and what we are learning is that the models are off.

  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,033
    eddiec said:

    BS44325 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    Okay BS, so forget about the Earth being uninhabitable for second.... What is the point of your point? Inhabitable or not, climate change or not, doesn't everyone want the Earth to be as clean as humanly possible?? That's what I don't get about climate change deniers or those trying to downplay the ill effects that humans have on the Earth. What exactly is their end goal? To say that they don't think we have to work at reducing pollution as much as we possibly can? That they don't really want a clean earth with clean, drinkable water and for animal species to survive and thrive as much as they want corporations to keep raking in the cash? If that is the the point, and frankly I don't see how it couldn't be, whether they care to admit it or not, that is rather horrific and makes no sense to me. I feel like EVERYONE should be on board with the idea that we have to reduce pollution and emissions at the rate that the most hardcore environmentalists are calling for, whether they believe in climate change or not.

    Finally we get to the point!

    Of course we all want a cleaner earth but your suggestion that to do this EVERYONE should be on board with what the most hardcore environmentalists are calling for is simply incorrect. We do not have unlimited resources to tackle every problem. We should be focusing on solvable problems that we can actually be effective in confronting. Improved drinking water? I'm on board. Reducing pollution? I'm on board. Climate change? I'm out. It is not a problem we even come close to understanding and the only non-solution that is currently on the table is to cripple the energy industry. This will have no measurable impact on the climate yet will absolutely hurt the economy and punish the poorest among us. This is what I don't get about climate change believers...they want a cleaner earth yet put all their focus on a theoretical problem.
    Well luckily you are a part of a diminishing minority.

    You are actually incorrect. The number of believers are actually decreasing. It is the number of skeptics who are on the rise.
  • dignindignin Posts: 8,501
    BS44325 said:

    eddiec said:

    BS44325 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    Okay BS, so forget about the Earth being uninhabitable for second.... What is the point of your point? Inhabitable or not, climate change or not, doesn't everyone want the Earth to be as clean as humanly possible?? That's what I don't get about climate change deniers or those trying to downplay the ill effects that humans have on the Earth. What exactly is their end goal? To say that they don't think we have to work at reducing pollution as much as we possibly can? That they don't really want a clean earth with clean, drinkable water and for animal species to survive and thrive as much as they want corporations to keep raking in the cash? If that is the the point, and frankly I don't see how it couldn't be, whether they care to admit it or not, that is rather horrific and makes no sense to me. I feel like EVERYONE should be on board with the idea that we have to reduce pollution and emissions at the rate that the most hardcore environmentalists are calling for, whether they believe in climate change or not.

    Finally we get to the point!

    Of course we all want a cleaner earth but your suggestion that to do this EVERYONE should be on board with what the most hardcore environmentalists are calling for is simply incorrect. We do not have unlimited resources to tackle every problem. We should be focusing on solvable problems that we can actually be effective in confronting. Improved drinking water? I'm on board. Reducing pollution? I'm on board. Climate change? I'm out. It is not a problem we even come close to understanding and the only non-solution that is currently on the table is to cripple the energy industry. This will have no measurable impact on the climate yet will absolutely hurt the economy and punish the poorest among us. This is what I don't get about climate change believers...they want a cleaner earth yet put all their focus on a theoretical problem.
    Well luckily you are a part of a diminishing minority.

    You are actually incorrect. The number of believers are actually decreasing. It is the number of skeptics who are on the rise.
    Oh really? You have any numbers from a legit source to back that up? Maybe something peer reviewed?
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,033
    dignin said:

    BS44325 said:

    eddiec said:

    BS44325 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    Okay BS, so forget about the Earth being uninhabitable for second.... What is the point of your point? Inhabitable or not, climate change or not, doesn't everyone want the Earth to be as clean as humanly possible?? That's what I don't get about climate change deniers or those trying to downplay the ill effects that humans have on the Earth. What exactly is their end goal? To say that they don't think we have to work at reducing pollution as much as we possibly can? That they don't really want a clean earth with clean, drinkable water and for animal species to survive and thrive as much as they want corporations to keep raking in the cash? If that is the the point, and frankly I don't see how it couldn't be, whether they care to admit it or not, that is rather horrific and makes no sense to me. I feel like EVERYONE should be on board with the idea that we have to reduce pollution and emissions at the rate that the most hardcore environmentalists are calling for, whether they believe in climate change or not.

    Finally we get to the point!

    Of course we all want a cleaner earth but your suggestion that to do this EVERYONE should be on board with what the most hardcore environmentalists are calling for is simply incorrect. We do not have unlimited resources to tackle every problem. We should be focusing on solvable problems that we can actually be effective in confronting. Improved drinking water? I'm on board. Reducing pollution? I'm on board. Climate change? I'm out. It is not a problem we even come close to understanding and the only non-solution that is currently on the table is to cripple the energy industry. This will have no measurable impact on the climate yet will absolutely hurt the economy and punish the poorest among us. This is what I don't get about climate change believers...they want a cleaner earth yet put all their focus on a theoretical problem.
    Well luckily you are a part of a diminishing minority.

    You are actually incorrect. The number of believers are actually decreasing. It is the number of skeptics who are on the rise.
    Oh really? You have any numbers from a legit source to back that up? Maybe something peer reviewed?
    Holy Crap! There was a big study in Canada (McGill) back in February showing that Canadians didn't believe humans were the cause of climate change and now that I went to get the link they have updated the story:

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/climate-change-yale-project-montreal-study-1.3458142

    I remember the original article like it was yesterday because the study's author had the nerve to explain his findings by saying "Canadians were clearly not educated enough on the topic to really understand climate change." Well what do you know...with a little bit of time the researches altered their findings and the CBC ran with it.

    Regardless... It is pretty well know that skepticism is on the rise. Here is motherjones

    http://m.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/global-warming-pause-climate-denial-public-opinion

    Here's gallup

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx

    There are a ton of these and while some are old it is obvious that skepticism is on the rise as the models and nonsensical predictions of Inconvenient Truth fail to materialize.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,080
    edited May 2016
    It's laughable that anyone would look at North American sceptiscism as any kind of suggestion that human caused climage change isn't real. There is a massive, yawning disconnect there, lol. We're talking about people who also think Obama is Muslim and Trump has the best interests of Americans as his first priority. Why would their skepticism be under any kind of consideration when discussing climate change? It is the scientists you need to pay attention to. Not a bunch of yokels and money grubbers and oil lovers.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,033
    PJ_Soul said:

    It's laughable that anyone would look at North American sceptiscism as any kind of suggestion that human caused climage change isn't real. There is a massive, yawning disconnect there, lol. We're talking about people who also think Obama is Muslim and Trump has the best interests of Americans as his first priority. Why would their skepticism be under any kind of consideration when discussing climate change? It is the scientists you need to pay attention to. Not a bunch of yokels and money grubbers and oil lovers.

    I don't think Obama is a muslim. On the whole I'm also no Trump supporter. I have an MSc degree. I'm also a skeptic. We do exist.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,080
    BS44325 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's laughable that anyone would look at North American sceptiscism as any kind of suggestion that human caused climage change isn't real. There is a massive, yawning disconnect there, lol. We're talking about people who also think Obama is Muslim and Trump has the best interests of Americans as his first priority. Why would their skepticism be under any kind of consideration when discussing climate change? It is the scientists you need to pay attention to. Not a bunch of yokels and money grubbers and oil lovers.

    I don't think Obama is a muslim. On the whole I'm also no Trump supporter. I have an MSc degree. I'm also a skeptic. We do exist.
    I wasn't talking about or thinking about you, but okay. Your skepticism also doesn't have any impact on facts.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,033
    Holy Crap! Mars is warming!

    http://www.sciencealert.com/mars-is-actually-still-recovering-for-an-ice-age-that-ended-400-000-years-ago

    We're emitting so much CO2 that we're now destroying other planets!
Sign In or Register to comment.