If you don't believe in Climate Change..

[eliteballer]

You're one of 3 things:

1. An idiot

2. Willfully blind

3. Uneducated

https://climate.nasa.gov/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

The science has spoken, it is real.

[Prometheus]

4. A shill

[jstern]

It's an interesting topic because of how so many don't believe in it because of their political leanings, and I guess you can also say that some people are for it because of their political leanings, even if they might be right. Human nature.

My favorite argument against it is that the temperature of the Earth changed millions of years ago, so there's your proof that man has had no effect on climate change. It's just something that the Earth does. It's absurd to think that the effects of men has anything to do with it.

It's all about their side winning.

Trump believes in climate change, but can't take that stand for political reasons.

[Akrazotile]

It's an interesting topic because of how so many don't believe in it because of their political leanings, and I guess you can also say that some people are for it because of their political leanings, even if they might be right. Human nature.

My favorite argument against it is that the temperature of the Earth changed millions of years ago, so there's your proof that man has had no effect on climate change. It's just something that the Earth does. It's absurd to think that the effects of men has anything to do with it.

It's all about their side winning.

Trump believes in climate change, but can't take that stand for political reasons.


Agreed.

In fact, most people never make the arguments youre suggesting they do. Not that Ive seen or heard. Most will tell you the climate changes naturally and we have no way to directly measure how great man’s impact exacerbates it. That much is true. Most will tell you there was doomsday alarmism about ‘global warming’ going on in the late 90s that predicted Miami FL would be submerged under water TODAY. That much is also true. Most will tell you alarmists are generally overstating things for the sake of looking like they know something important, and have superior political value to folks who dont get worked up so easily by the latest and greatest outrage.

That much also seems to be true.

But since those are all reasonable positions, hysterical far left screwballs have to come up with some kind of fake news about how “the other side is denying it!” in order to maintain their charade.

:confusedshrug:

Weird people, these guys.

[Patrick Chewing]

Once again everyone is confused about this issue. The issue isn't if climate change is real or not. There is empirical data to prove this. I mean, we all knew what the Ice Age was in Elementary school.


The issue people have a hard time swallowing is the belief that climate change is affected by man, and affected by man at these alarming levels that these scientists and politicians believe.

[Prometheus]

Once again everyone is confused about this issue. The issue isn't if climate change is real or not. There is empirical data to prove this. I mean, we all knew what the Ice Age was in Elementary school.


The issue people have a hard time swallowing is the belief that climate change is affected by man, and affected by man at these alarming levels that these scientists and politicians believe.

The scientific community is in effective consensus on this issue. The disagreement is not within science - it is within politics.

[dunksby]

The scientific community is in effective consensus on this issue. The disagreement is not within science - it is within politics.
You gotta catch up, the evidence reached gold standard a while back:

“Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.

Such a “gold standard” was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard-scientists-idUSKCN1QE1ZU

[Prometheus]

Why tell me to catch up and then support my point? Okay so I shouldn't have used the word "effective". My point is only a better one now.

[kennethgriffen]

i think its a polar shift. some parts of the world are colder than ever

[Long Duck Dong]

So are we making it better or worse?

[Patrick Chewing]

So are we making it better or worse?


We

[Long Duck Dong]

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]We

[CeltsGarlic]

Pollution is getting crazy big in some parts of the world and I hate it

[bladefd]

Once again everyone is confused about this issue. The issue isn't if climate change is real or not. There is empirical data to prove this. I mean, we all knew what the Ice Age was in Elementary school.


The issue people have a hard time swallowing is the belief that climate change is affected by man, and affected by man at these alarming levels that these scientists and politicians believe.

I posted this before but we humans are mostly responsible for the excess greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. It's mainly two greenhouse gases causing the most misery due to the extreme amounts.. CO2 from coal/oil/gas and methane from excess animal breeding for our consumption. Other lesser amounts include NO2 from agriculture waste and other fluorides.

So yes, climate change IS affected and amplified by humans, and there is absolutely zero doubt to that fact, empirically, logically and realistically. Zero doubt about it. Zero.

[FKAri]

It's an honest question. We are hairless chimps without the ability to grow hair to protect us from the elements. About the coldest we can survive without clothing is 70 degrees. Most of our crops require that average at a minimum as well. Our sweet spot is 80 degrees. The average global temperature is only 58.6 degrees. Sounds like the earth can use some warming up from the human standpoint.

In a 100 years when humans are controlling the weather through technology, I think they will be snickering a little about the whole climate change panic that took place a century earlier
Climate doesn't work like that. Changes in temperature change weather patterns and can break thresholds that we know are there or some that we don't even know about. This results in more chaotic storm patterns. Sure your temperature is up 2 degrees in your area but maybe it no longer rains enough to grow crops or your entire coastline is gone because the water has moved in a mile. Our entire infrastructure is based on a predictable climate. No ones gives a **** if it's 2C warmer. It's these other things that matter.

[Akrazotile]

I posted this before but we humans are mostly responsible for the excess greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. It's mainly two greenhouse gases causing the most misery due to the extreme amounts.. CO2 from coal/oil/gas and methane from excess animal breeding for our consumption. Other lesser amounts include NO2 from agriculture waste and other fluorides.

So yes, climate change IS affected and amplified by humans, and there is absolutely zero doubt to that fact, empirically, logically and realistically. Zero doubt about it. Zero.


I dont think you know what empirically means.

Yes, the more green house gas in the air, the more effect you will get. But the Earth’s climate is not static nor is it predictable on big time scales. That means you cannot quantify the effect humans are having, nor that we even are having affect (which Im sure we are to some degree.) A change in climate like this COULD happen even if there no people around. You dont have another Earth around without people that you can use for a control. So you cannot measure our impact or be certain EMPIRCALY that we’re having one.

Logically? Yes. Empirically? No.

But youre bladefd. You pompously bleet progressive taking points because you want to sound smart, not because you care about being correct.

[Akrazotile]

Pollution is getting crazy big in some parts of the world and I hate it


Yeah but no one will focus on this because there’s nothing to “convince” others about.

Everyone believes pollution exists so liberals dont care about it addressing it or cleaning it up. They want you to believe in and submit to their God, Global Warming. Fighting that fight is how they feel superior as “knowledge bringers”.

That’s what the issue is really all about.

Allahu AlGore

[eliteballer]

ITs not about what *we* can physically survive you dopes, it

[Akrazotile]

ITs not about what *we* can physically survive you dopes, it’s abpt what the environment and ecosystems around us can survive in terms of our food, animals, vegetation etc surviving to maintain the society and living standards we have now. Already we’re seeing insects and amphibians drastically affected and that will have an effect on everything else we the chain.


So stop eating meat.

Put down your pets.

Quit driving a car.

Oppose development in impoverished countries.


No “climate denier” is trying to stop you from doing any of that.

Why do you keep trying to argue with other Americans about it?? Nobody is stopping progressives from making meaningful changes.

Perhaps it’s just easier for you to take some stranger’s job in a coal mine and feel self important than to stop eating burgers and give up your puppies? Maybe you wanna be the one to preach it while others have to be the ones who must practice it?

What do you want? What is your point?

[bladefd]

[QUOTE=Akrazotile]I dont think you know what empirically means.

Yes, the more green house gas in the air, the more effect you will get. But the Earth

[Akrazotile]

>empirical evidence shows that CO2 causes heating
>empirical evidence shows that humans release tremendous CO2 (and bit later including measures of methane, NO2, fluorides, etc) each year since we began measuring and keeping record in 1800s
>what other empirical evidence do you need?


Yes, everyone knows those two things are true. You are drawing a subsequent conclusion that makes sense logically, but cannot be tested directly.

I could belch once and claim it is empircally heating up the earth. “CO2 heats the Earth, and I just released CO2. Empirical!”

Except... it’s clearly well below the necessary admissions threshold. So I didnt prove it “empircally” by making two technicaly accurate statements and then making a non demonstrable leap..

The Earth goes through cycles naturally. If it’s currently in a heating cycle, how can you possibly distinguish how much change is natural and how much is human induced? You cant. Therefore your conclusions are not empircal.

I realize one of your links has the word “empirical” in its web address and Im sure you assumed that was good enough to parrot. But it seems to me that it just proves you arent thinking for yourself and are just blindly accepting anything ANY scientist tells - so long as it fits the views youre already committed to.

I dont doubt man will impact the climate long term. Maybe we’re primarily responsible for the changes going on now. Maybe we’re secondarily responsible. The correct answer is “we dont know.”

But youre not smart enough to know you dont know. You believe whatever you think postures you as an intellectual. It’s embarrassing. Youre an enormous try-hard.

[bladefd]

Yeah but no one will focus on this because there’s nothing to “convince” others about.

Everyone believes pollution exists so liberals dont care about it addressing it or cleaning it up. They want you to believe in and submit to their God, Global Warming. Fighting that fight is how they feel superior as “knowledge bringers”.

That’s what the issue is really all about.

Allahu AlGore

Pollution and climate change are very much like yin and yang.. CO2 is perhaps the biggest pollutant if expelled in extreme amounts like we humans do and the biggest cause of climate change/global warming/whatever you want to call it. Yes, Earth needs CO2 to sustain life, but as anything it has to be in balance. Shift to clean renewable energy source and you begin to expel less of CO2 from human activities, and you begin to combat climate change in that manner.

At the same time, you can push to recycle more, reuse nuclear waste & dispose more environmentally friendly ways, stop dumping chemical wastes into rivers/oceans, cut down on plastic use, stop coal mining & burning coal (pollutant), limit pesticide use, focus more on using high efficiency electronics & appliances, increase mileage of cars & perhaps shift to electric cars, significantly slow down deforestation fast (forests are our buffer). I can go on, but you get the point. There are so many things you can do that impacts both pollution and climate change.

[bladefd]

[QUOTE=Akrazotile]Yes, everyone knows those two things are true. You are drawing a subsequent conclusion that makes sense logically, but cannot be tested directly.

I could belch once and claim it is empircally heating up the earth.

[warriorfan]

Oppose development in impoverished countries.


This is actually a good point. It

[Akrazotile]

Wrong again, but what else is new?

We DO know that we are primarily responsible for most of the CO2/methane/NO2/fluorides being released. We can measure them, and we know they cause heating of our atmosphere and oceans in response.


:roll:

We know that we’re responsible for the gasses we release? Oh my, what a revelation.

We cannot measure our specific impact on the climate because we dont have a static climate to use as a control. Therefore your inferences (well, the inferences you parrot) may be logical or intuitive, but they are not EMPIRICAL.


Have you noticed that you are always on the PC/progressive side of EVERY issue? How could you live in America today and deep down always have a completely politically correct view on everything? You are GENERIC, and therefore you always take the safe and socially approved view. You are a robot and you dont even realize it. Youre one of the least insightful and original thinkers here from ANY part of the spectrum, yet you have the enormous pretention to wag your fingers when you repeat things you didnt think of for yourseld. You have the gall to call yourself a “Renaissance Man.” You are a completely generic phony, TRYING to play the role of a Renaissance man because you think it’s a cool image. It’s not what you really are. What you are is dumb, gullible and average. Anti intellectual.

[Akrazotile]

This is actually a good point. It’s pretty funny for us to suddenly put the foot down after we abused the planet for hundreds of years to get where we are, now when other countries are trying to catch up we are going to step in and say “sorry, too late for that”. Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Nothing new but it keeps accelerating and accelerating.


That’s evolution, right? Thats life on a meaningless rock. Survival of the fittest.

What do we owe any of these poor countries? We got to the top first. We supposed to doom the planet just to convince neighbors and co workers we conform to the moraity du jour?

Balderdash.

Nam sayin!?

[Akrazotile]

[QUOTE=Akrazotile]So stop eating meat.

Put down your pets.

Quit driving a car.

Oppose development in impoverished countries.


No

[bladefd]

:roll:

We know that we’re responsible for the gasses we release? Oh my, what a revelation.

We cannot measure our specific impact on the climate because we dont have a static climate to use as a control. Therefore your inferences (well, the inferences you parrot) may be logical or intuitive, but they are not EMPIRICAL.

Wrong again. It's a pattern.

You don't need a 2nd Earth without humans to compare as control.

WE are responsible for the gases WE release. We KNOW these gases cause heating. We can check over the past hundreds of thousands of years (650,000+ years) what the air composition was through multiple ice ages, and we KNOW CO2 has FAR EXCEEDED the highest CO2 composition across multiple ice age advances and retreats. We KNOW CO2 began increasing DIRECTLY LINKED to industrial revolution and our increases in CO2 emissions since the beginning of industrial revolution.

https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-021116.jpeg
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

(NASA link has many other empirical evidences as you scroll down the page)

[Akrazotile]

Wrong again. It's a pattern.

You don't need a 2nd Earth without humans to compare as control.




Right. You need a second Earth without a naturally changing climate.

You have zero idea how much the Earth’s climate is changing naturally at the moment. We go through ice ages and glacial melts all the time. We know the climate isnt static..

So you cant reliably conclude how MUCH of the current change is artifically induced, and how much is natural.

Inconvenient Truth was marketed as a DATA BASED documentary, and yet many of its alarmist predictions are ALREADY PROVEN WRONG. Much of the current hypotheses are undoubtedly speculation based, but they pass it on to laypeople like you as fact and you just eat it up.

You think you know something, simply because people you trust told you it and you blindly parrot what they say. You dont actually know anything about any of this. Nor do I, but I have the advantage of having common sense.

[bladefd]

[QUOTE=Akrazotile]Right. You need a second Earth without a naturally changing climate.

[B]You have zero idea how much the Earth

[Akrazotile]

You don't need to know that in order to claim humans have a HUGE impact on greenhouse gas amplification and climate change. Fact: we have not had natural CO2 levels anywhere as high as it is now over the last 7 ice ages, and it is correlated directly to industrial revolution - there is zero question about that.




Yes, that is what we agreed on from the beginning. Logically, it is circumstantially reasonable to expect greenhouse gasses having some impact on the atmosphere at a certain thresh hold.

You do not know precisely what the threshold is, nor do scientists. There is nothing empirically proven about HOW we have affected the environment. You are speculating on the specifics, based on the general concept of CO2 creating a greenhouse effect.

You and I can speculate on OJ killing his wife. "We know innocent people aren't gonna flee the scene in a high speed chase with a gun to their head. We know he was an angry man with a violent temper. We know all these other things that point to a reasonable conclusion." We don't have empirical evidence of OJ killing his wife. Even though you and I both know it.

We don't have empirical evidence that Earth's current climate trajectory has more to do with humans than natural factors. We can speculate all we want. It has not been proven empirically.

I don't think it can be explained any clearer than that. You're going to believe what you want. I'm not gonna go back and forth on it anymore. If you wanna post your chart again and think you've triumphed in the discussion because I've stopped responding... go for it. Nothin more I can do.

[eliteballer]

Yes, that is what we agreed on from the beginning. Logically, it is circumstantially reasonable to expect greenhouse gasses having some impact on the atmosphere at a certain thresh hold.

You do not know precisely what the threshold is, nor do scientists. There is nothing empirically proven about HOW we have affected the environment. You are speculating on the specifics, based on the general concept of CO2 creating a greenhouse effect.

You and I can speculate on OJ killing his wife. "We know innocent people aren't gonna flee the scene in a high speed chase with a gun to their head. We know he was an angry man with a violent temper. We know all these other things that point to a reasonable conclusion." We don't have empirical evidence of OJ killing his wife. Even though you and I both know it.

We don't have empirical evidence that Earth's current climate trajectory has more to do with humans than natural factors. We can speculate all we want. It has not been proven empirically.

I don't think it can be explained any clearer than that. You're going to believe what you want. I'm not gonna go back and forth on it anymore. If you wanna post your chart again and think you've triumphed in the discussion because I've stopped responding... go for it. Nothin more I can do.

Don't worry, we'll listen to you and not the mountains of scientists with their degrees, knowledge, data, and research which tell us otherwise :roll:

[Akrazotile]

Don't worry, we'll listen to you and not the mountains of scientists with their degrees, knowledge, data, and research which tell us otherwise :roll:


Ok. And then what are you gonna do?

Hold a bunch of world summits where you pat yourselves on the back for agreeing with each other about global warming?

Demand we strip certain people of their jobs in the name of global warming, while the most ardent proponents take no responsibility?

What do you actually care about global warming other than as leverage for being pretentious?

Tell us what your plan is.

[Draz]

Anyone that isn't worried about climate change:

- don't have kids, yet

Once you start having kids, your kids having kids, your perspective changes.