By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump: 'Nobody Really Knows' If Climate Change Is Real

Pemalite on 18 December 2016
thranx said:
Where are the ice caps? Shouldn't our coastal areas already be flooded. The world was doomed by global warming in the 90's and shouldn't be able to survive now. We must change before the caps are gone, before the sea levels rise and our coastal cities are gone. The end is near! I think the solution is to hurt our economy as much as possible so that way the Chinese and India can do the polluting for us! That will fix it all. Best of all the scientist agree with me so lets throw rational thought out the window and get to killing our economy a little faster.

Do you understand how long it takes for Ice-caps to melt?



Here is Antarctica:


Ice Sheets will grow/shrink depending on season. But the trend has been constant. Overall, they are decreasing. - The laws of Physics literally apply here, that water needs to go somewhere... And that is the Ocean.

They aren't just decreasing in the amount of land that the ice covers either, the sheets are also thinner.

As for rising sea levels... Islands are being evacuated due to rising sea levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carteret_Islands


Now try and disprove that evidence without resorting to conspiracy theories.

bdbdbd said:
Pemalite said:

Trump is not Neutral. He is a conservative, which means he is against "change" or anything that distrupts the status quo.
He is also a protectionist.

Of course he is, he's from USA. That'd be a day if USA didn't have a conservative candidate. Haha.

If he's against change, why is it change that he might be causing the primary concern of the world leaders regarding Trump? 

Because he is a protectionist.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
numberwang on 19 December 2016

Another prediction busted? Club of Rome is over?

We have more food and need less land than ever before despite growing populations.

 

http://blog.nature.org/science/2014/06/18/global-agriculture-land-sustainability-deforestation-foodsecurity/

 

Caused by new technologies and CO2-fertilization of the atmosphere?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/



Slimebeast on 20 December 2016
Shadow1980 said:
Slimebeast said:

lol "scientists warn that downtown Miami, Manhattan, New Orleans, the Maldives, and half of Bangladesh permanently under water". There's zero chance for that to happen with a sea level rise of one or two meter.

It's those kinds of ridiculous claims that in turn make the sceptic side reject everything.

Don't be obtuse. I was making a rhetorical point. Even if the evidence pointed towards certain disaster, conservatives would still reject it out of hand. Their approach to relative risks is all over the place. They worry about terrorists embedded in refugees fleeing a warzone, yet turn a blind eye towards scientists that warn that, should a worst-case scenario arise, it will be very costly in terms of infrastructure damage and millions of displaced people, among other potential impacts. There are a wide variety of projected scenarios, and the actual long-term consequences of global warming are where we have the least certainty. But rejecting not only the possibility of a worst-case scenario, but even the science itself, is not acceptable, I don't care what your opinion on taxation or regulation is. Apparently, we only prepare for the worst when dealing with brown people that have a different religion.

And a rise of two meters to sea levels is not inconsequential. Millions of people live in areas that would be threatened. Low-lying island nations like the Maldives and Tuvalu would be almost entirely submerged. Millions of people in Bangladesh live in areas low enough to be submerged or threatened. Many neighborhoods in coastal areas in the U.S. are less than two meters above sea level or close enough to be threatened by storm surges made worse by increasing sea levels. New Orleans is already below sea level, and incresing sea levels could put it at greater risk than it already is at.

And sea levels won't just stop growing after the end of this century, either. But it's easy to ignore problems that might not ever effect us, but will effect people that live long after we're dead. I guess you could take the apathetic "Not my problem. I'll be dead anyway." approach, despoil the environment for short-term gains in profit, and turn a blind eye towards the warnings of scientists, but such a position is morally indefensible and deserving of neither respect nor consideration. Every bit of evidence suggests that the world is warming and that we're the cause, and there's good reason to be concerned that rapid changes in climate could have many negative effects. It would be prudent to do something instead of sitting on our duffs and accusing climate scientists of being part of some global socialist conspiracy to destroy the economy.

Again, it's those ridiculous claims that are making sceptics reject everything.

You seriously talk about the risk of Southern Bangladesh or the pacific island of Tuvalu getting flooded in 50 to 80 years from now (I suppose you've never heard about flood control), while you are ridiculing people who are upset about the millions of victims to crime commited right now by foreigners from the third world. That's absurd.

That's complete moral corruption.



thranx on 25 December 2016
SpokenTruth said:
thranx said:
Where are the ice caps? Shouldn't our coastal areas already be flooded. The world was doomed by global warming in the 90's and shouldn't be able to survive now. We must change before the caps are gone, before the sea levels rise and our coastal cities are gone. The end is near! I think the solution is to hurt our economy as much as possible so that way the Chinese and India can do the polluting for us! That will fix it all. Best of all the scientist agree with me so lets throw rational thought out the window and get to killing our economy a little faster.

You might want to do some research on China and their actions on climate change.  They know that nearly 700 million people live on their coast. Guess who leads the world in renewable technology investments?  They will also soon have the largest decarbonizing plan in the wrold.  You thnk it's just the west that is concerend with global climate change?

 

Want a few numbers on sea level rising?  In the past 100 years, the oceans have risen about 4-8 inches.  But in just the past 25 years, the rate of rise has doubled.  If this doesn't concern you, may you be fortunate enough to remain blissfully unaware of the impact it will have upon you and your family.

The only impact my family and i will feel is the econmic hardship we will be put under by uneeded regulation. China isnt worried about climate change, they are worried about actual pollution that is probably killing their citiezens. Bad water, bad air. How fast have deficit spending been rising? a lot faster than sea levels have been rising. I am not saying that the climate doesn't change, and that the world doesnt go through cycles. I am saying we arent the cause, we aren't the solution, and we simply do not know enough. If we did we would actually be able to predict something to happen. We have been wrong so far so I place little "faith" in it since there is no tangeible proof



Puppyroach on 25 December 2016

Climate change is a factual matter, of course it exists (all climates change constantly). Man-made climate change is also a fact since we as a species effect the climate just like every other species. However, the question is in regards to how bit our impact is compared to other factors and if we are altering the climate at a pace that makes it hard for our society to adapt and for the environment to cope with. But it's very plausible that we are a major cause for a lot of the changes in global temperatures that we see, much more plausible than any other hypothesis we have so far (as I've heard of atleast), so it's only ignorant of a president to not take that into heavy consideration when it comes to policy making.



Around the Network
TheLegendaryWolf on 25 December 2016

What we need is a more concrete plan that takes into account the developing countries that got the chance to industrialize thanks to petroleum and fossil fuels seriously. I'm all for lowering emissions but not at the cost at sending developing nations back into the 3rd world category once more.

Instead of the current stance killing the use of fossil fuels, the plan should be to reduce dependency gradually rather than replacing it entirely. Is it so far-fetched to make a plan where both fossil fuels and green energy coexist in the near future?



setsunatenshi on 25 December 2016

fuck this guy, his ass will be long dead by the time we have to suffer the consequences of climate change, so what does he care?

still can't believe this joke got himself elected into the WH...



Illusion on 25 December 2016

I'm skeptical on man made global warming purely because I feel that no true scientific debate has occurred. Anybody who questions the topic of man-made global warming gets lambasted publicly and called a "denier." This is so incredibly anti-scientific. Why does Al Gore actively dodge questions from skeptics? A true scientist would invite dissent because it's through detached debate that the truth can be found. The problem is that detached debate on this topic isn't possible because this is a political issue with the left using it as a crutch to justify government taxation and control while the right lashes back. Scientists are being used as political fodder and politicians never see their view as being one of a multiple possible answers, it's always their way or the highway.

It will only be when this issue dies politically and nobody has anything to lose one way or the other that the truth will finally come out. I personally believe that man-made global warming is likely a partial truth with humans having some effect but not enough to cause a global catastrophe but not so little as to not be worth studying objectively to understand.



Illusion on 26 December 2016
SpokenTruth said:

It was scientific long before it was political.   The reason you don't see a debate now is because that happened already.  It's done.  The concensus from the scientific community has been made.  And it was made long before politics came into play.

That's the wrong attitude to have right out of the starting gate.  Science is never settled just like every year we learn new things about our universe that completely blow away theories from even just 20 years ago.  The science is only "settled" because it has become politically incorrect to question it.  The left-wing elites have grown in political power over recent decades and now it is academic suicide to speak out against climate change in any university.  Heck, they are even talking about making it illegal to question man-made global warming in the public forum:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/calif-bill-prosecutes-climate-change-skeptics/

In my opinion, Anthropogenic Global Warming has more in common with a man-made religious inquisition then it does with real science.  Men like Dr. Roy Spencer are modern day Galileo's for questioning AGW and he (and people like him) have been severely persecuted as a result.  If the science behind AGW was sound, then there would be no need for this kind of barbarism and opression of free thought.  Climate Change justifies carbon taxes and government control over people's lives and that is why it is being forced on people.  It is a vehicle to take away personal freedom and empower elites such as Goldman Sachs who control the government and most big corporations.  I believe that the real motivation behind AGW has nothing to due to with true science.



Soundwave on 26 December 2016
Illusion said:
I'm skeptical on man made global warming purely because I feel that no true scientific debate has occurred. Anybody who questions the topic of man-made global warming gets lambasted publicly and called a "denier." This is so incredibly anti-scientific. Why does Al Gore actively dodge questions from skeptics? A true scientist would invite dissent because it's through detached debate that the truth can be found. The problem is that detached debate on this topic isn't possible because this is a political issue with the left using it as a crutch to justify government taxation and control while the right lashes back. Scientists are being used as political fodder and politicians never see their view as being one of a multiple possible answers, it's always their way or the highway.

It will only be when this issue dies politically and nobody has anything to lose one way or the other that the truth will finally come out. I personally believe that man-made global warming is likely a partial truth with humans having some effect but not enough to cause a global catastrophe but not so little as to not be worth studying objectively to understand.

You're ignoring oil companies will billions and billions of dollars at stake in this debate. The oil industry is not just "kinda an industry", it an industry which has caused full blown wars over, it is the most precious available resource in many aspects. 

So there is a huge incentive to discredit any global warming study, because there are very rich people who stand to lose a lot of money and that as you can expect does not go over well.