Quantcast
Trump: 'Nobody Really Knows' If Climate Change Is Real

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

UnderstatedCornHole said:
fielding88 said:

 

I caught the tail-end of your discussion, and forgive me if someone already brought this up, but just to play devil's advocate a bit here, I'd present you with a bit of information on the igloo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igloo

"On the outside, temperatures may be as low as −45 °C (−49 °F), but on the inside the temperature may range from −7 °C (19 °F) to 16 °C (61 °F) when warmed by body heat alone"

I think this is a good argument in favour of the ease with which humans can survive in cold temperatures (and have been doing so for thousands of years. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, but do you have a similar apparatus humans can use that can decrease outside hot temperatures as efficiently as igloos, without using things like electricity or other types of power generators (since igloos only use body heat, and often require a chimney to vent the excess heat and prevent melting)?

What's your conclusion?

I asked a question at the end of the post, so that means I'm still formulating one.




Around the Network
deskpro2k3 said:
UnderstatedCornHole said:

Source?

You need the source, you're making the statement against accepted norm, or you are introducing new information.

Facebook? What is your obsession with Facebook, I don't even use Facebook. That's the third time you've bought it up for no reason.

"Companies that make documentaries don't do it to inform, they do it for ratings, profit. They can and do twist anything. Question everything, especially when it's a nice friendly narrative that gives you confirmation bias!"

if you can't explain how you know this, then I cannot take your word seriously.

here look, for example, this is how you do it.

The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)

Rising oceans threaten to submerge 128 military bases: report

NY Times

Well it's either,

1. Documentaries are made for profit or to further an agenda.

or

2. Documentaries are purely an alteristic service provided for the good of mankind?

 

It's you that needs the source to say it's 2.



UnderstatedCornHole said:
deskpro2k3 said:

"Companies that make documentaries don't do it to inform, they do it for ratings, profit. They can and do twist anything. Question everything, especially when it's a nice friendly narrative that gives you confirmation bias!"

if you can't explain how you know this, then I cannot take your word seriously.

here look, for example, this is how you do it.

The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)

Rising oceans threaten to submerge 128 military bases: report

NY Times

Well it's either,

1. Documentaries are made for profit or to further an agenda.

or

2. Documentaries are purely an alteristic service provided for the good of mankind?

 

It's you that needs the source to say it's 2.

 

are you going to prove to me that your statement is true or not?

I provided some sources to convey what the documentary I saw was talking about. I don't think there is anything left for me to prove now.

edit: obviously we got off on a bad foot here, the facebook thing is a joke. i'm willing to just let this back and forth mocojumbo go. peace?



Flilix said:
Locknuts said:
Man made climate change may turn out to be significant and it may not, but I think we need to be aware that there are those who will use climate change to push their own agenda.

It's important that we don't panic and that every time a solution is proposed we ask the question: what's in it for the person proposing it? What's their agenda?

For politicians it's a lot easier to deny climate change. If an important person says 'nobody really knows if climate change is real', then people will believe him. This way, they do not have to feel guilty for keeping polluting.

You could compare it to a politician who wants to abolish all taxes. It sounds good, but it isn't. In the first few years, people will get richer, but after that the country will have a lot of debts and there will be an economical crisis.

Also, the oil lobby is way bigger than the 'green energy lobby' (if that even exists). Fossil fuel is cheaper than  renewable energy.

By the way, 99% of the scientists say climate change is real. Why would they lie? Some people seem to think that being a scientist means that you're a part of some sort of cult or political organisation.

Actually climate change is the perfect catalyst for higher taxes, which governments love because it makes their lives easier and allows government to expand. Look at the solutions governments and supra national governments propose - the solutions almost always involve higher taxes, more regulation and forced redistribution of wealth. If you can convince a population that the sky is falling and that the only solution is for them to pay more tax, people will beg to be taxed more.

The media need a good story, and catastrophic climate change fits the bill. Scientists need federal funding, so they keep telling politicians the worst case scenarios. I would look up what some recently retired climate scientists have to say on the matter as they have nothing to lose.

Also, of course climate change is real. I would be surprised if 1% didn't agree with that. But 99% of climate scientists certainly do not believe that man made Co2 emissions are going to cause dangerous global warming and even if they did, science is not done by consensus.

I hope Trump launches a huge investigation into climate change and we find out the truth. We know that he is a skeptic and has brought in a lot of right wing people, so if they use all their arguments and still deem climate change a big issue, then you know that shit is a serious problem.



deskpro2k3 said:
UnderstatedCornHole said:

Well it's either,

1. Documentaries are made for profit or to further an agenda.

or

2. Documentaries are purely an alteristic service provided for the good of mankind?

 

It's you that needs the source to say it's 2.

 

are you going to prove to me that your statement is true or not?

I provided some sources to convey what the documentary I saw was talking about. I don't think there is anything left for me to prove now.

edit: obviously we got off on a bad foot here, the facebook thing is a joke. i'm willing to just let this back and forth mocojumbo go. peace?

Peace :)



Around the Network
UnderstatedCornHole said:

They don't "know" anything. They simply understand what the results of a certain test means in the narrow context of the biased direction they've been asked to test in.

A few of the ignorant vocal ones will go for 15 minutes of fame.

They puppet exactly what "other people say". They don't realize they are in an echo chamber. They are no more intellectual than hollywood celebs who are surrounded by more useful idiots like themselves. The worst thing about "scienties" is that they forget they are irrantional emotionally and fall back on science to prove to themselves they aren't muppets.

Their data is extrapolated by ill people who serve to manipulate the masses and thus we have "climate change".

Real issues don't even get dealt with in politics, do you think something might not be real is going to be looked seriously? Don't be so naive.

It's just something for the liberals to worship and feel good about themselves and make them more pliable.

All I can ascertain is that you believe that the majority of the entire planets scientisits and scientific organizations are colluding together in some sort of conspiracy theory to fabricate "Climate Change". - They aren't. They have real science that you can look at and verify and in some cases, repeat yourself.

Unless you have evidence that this conspiracy theory you are peddling is factual, then you really have no basis to stand on, I and any other logical-thinking person will believe the majority of scientists that climate change is real, it's the scientisits job to get educated, find cause and effect and extrapolate. - They have done so and you should stand by their findings, not a politicians.

Locknuts said:

I hope Trump launches a huge investigation into climate change and we find out the truth. We know that he is a skeptic and has brought in a lot of right wing people, so if they use all their arguments and still deem climate change a big issue, then you know that shit is a serious problem.


We have had decades worth of debate. It was an issue in the 90's. It is an issue today, if we spend the next several decades continuing to debate, then nothing will get done and we will continue to do more damage to the planet.
Remember, the majority of the planets scientists stand behind the findings that climate change is happening. It's their job to know, the politicians are not scientists, they need to shut up and stand behind what scientists find.
Converesly, scientists haven't actually stopped making experiments for decades, recording data, taking samples... And they still point to increases to Carbon and thus Climate change. It is simply irrefutable.
All the climate data next year will still point to climate change. Same with the year after that.

Trumps issue is... He follows garbage "news" like infowars that peddles conspiracy theories without any factual basis. That is dangerous and stupid.

Pauline Hanson and One Nation here in Australia is just as bad, Malcolm Roberts is a Climate-Change Denier, he had a Physicist literally throw evidence of climate change at him, he had Australia's national chief science officer school him... And he still deny's climate change.
Sadly he did get elected, even if it was only 77 first preference votes. - He has a history of working and running coal mines, he has an ulterior motive to bolster his own financial interests in the coal industry, sadly Pauline Hanson supports the moron.

They even went to the Great Barrier Reef to "Prove" that Coral bleaching isn't happening. - Not only were they in a part of the Reef that is the least damaged... But it was bleached a long time ago.
Coral can actually rejuvinate over time after a bleaching event, given some time and the right circumstance, but if it gets bleached to many times in quick succession, it will not recover, sadly they were ignorant about that particular tidbit.




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.



deskpro2k3 said:
UnderstatedCornHole said:

Source?

You need the source, you're making the statement against accepted norm, or you are introducing new information.

Facebook? What is your obsession with Facebook, I don't even use Facebook. That's the third time you've bought it up for no reason.

"Companies that make documentaries don't do it to inform, they do it for ratings, profit. They can and do twist anything. Question everything, especially when it's a nice friendly narrative that gives you confirmation bias!"

if you can't explain how you know this, then I cannot take your word seriously.

here look, for example, this is how you do it.

The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)

Rising oceans threaten to submerge 128 military bases: report

NY Times

In 100 years. In the 90's and early 2000's we were told rising sea levels would endager coastal cities. Where are we now? Can't believe science that cant properly predict.  Let me know when something they say actually happens. Until than I think we are better off keeping a healthy economy and not damaging ourselves over something that we do not know enough about.



I think my biggest beef with global warming is that it takes the focus off of actual environmental damage that is occurring and it takes our focus off keeping a clean water supply. All of this energy, money, and time would be much better spent keeping our water and oceans clean, and getting rid of smog and particle pollution in the air. Not trying enforce regulations on what is essentially a harmless gas to us and a beneficial gas to plants.



thranx said:
I think my biggest beef with global warming is that it takes the focus off of actual environmental damage that is occurring and it takes our focus off keeping a clean water supply. All of this energy, money, and time would be much better spent keeping our water and oceans clean, and getting rid of smog and particle pollution in the air. Not trying enforce regulations on what is essentially a harmless gas to us and a beneficial gas to plants.

Limiting pollution is the main solution to global warming.  Carbon monoxide (a pollutant) released from burning fossil fuels oxidizes to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.