| Insidb said: Unfrotunately, droughts would kill said produce and the people who intend to eat them. |
There'd be most likely more green life as the soil in colder regions would become more suitable for growth and climate change specifically causes water redistribution so while some areas may see droughts there will be floods in others ...
| SocialistSlayer said: AGW is not only a hoax but all a fraud. disigned to redistribute wealth for social justice. Its to bring the 1st world crumbling down, to meet the 3rd. When the raw data show's no warming for 18 years, it's simple the adjust the data, or use computers to model projected temperature. When the models are shown to be wrong by huge percentage, they change their data collection methods, and again adjust the numbers. Then they get caught emailing about their scandalous lies, but fret not the MSM got their back. Then create more fake number's like 97% of scientist agree |
What are you referring to? What emails?
Climate change is real, and it's a problem that's only increasing. The climate talks in Paris were a disaster (They said they would keep global warming at 2°C, while, when they add all the efforts up, they will only manage to halt at 2.6°C, even though a lot of countries asked to limit global warming to 1.5°C to avoid certain islands from being lost to the oceans, and then you have to consider the scientific community says there is only certainty that no self-strengthening effects will enter in effect if we keep global warming under 1°C. To put that into perspective, we're at 0.8°C now (change since the 1950-1980 mean)), so we need to put more efforts into solving it.
fatslob-:O said:
There'd be most likely more green life as the soil in colder regions would become more suitable for growth and climate change specifically causes water redistribution so while some areas may see droughts there will be floods in others ... |
Maybe, but those dead people would definitely not appreciate it.
Keep in mind that most humans live in the temparate zones, and the poles are largely made of permafrost.
| fatslob-:O said: I don't deny that we have a role as far as climate change is concerned but what alarmists fail to realize are the benefits of a warmer environment like less deaths from freezing or more natural produce growing ... |
Your argument doesn't make sense: warmer weather in colder countries is certainly apreciated but the warming happens all around the world, every year in Africa thousands of square km go under desertification, which takes the place of most of the forests that contribute to make us breath. Plus, in a world where not everyone has access to water I'm shure that there's already more people dying because of heat than because of freezing. In the summer newspapers always report about people dying because of heat even in the most advanced countries while people dying because of freezing don't appear that often...
| Aeolus451 said: The diseases I mentioned all thrive more in hotter climates. Diseases in general thrive more in hotter climates. That's a fact. You're talking about the common cold. |
Flu viruses also thrive in the cold as evidenced by the illnesses near the winter season ...
And cancer growth is shown to be worse in colder conditions too ...
There's tons of infectious psychrophile's to be had too so your still far away from concluding that a hotter climate will negatively impact the spread of pathogens in the end ...
I don't think it matters and honestly I think it's distracting from the real issue.
And I don't mean that in the way many may think I did. I mean it as in, even if climate change is fake/not man made we should still care for the environment and the condition of the earth and everything on it. Are we as a people such monsters that we only care about lessening our impact on the earth if it is the only way to prevent the "end of the world"? I'd like to think not, but honestly I'm learning towards that being the case considering how so many people gets stuck on the argument of climate change and never seems to stop for a second to consider if simply leaving the earth beautiful, clean, diverse, with natural resources aplenty for future generations is enough reward itself.
Bets:
1. If the Wii U sells closer to 10 million LTD by 1/3/2015 I win. If it sells closer to 9.5 million LTD by 1/3/2015 OfficerRaichu15 wins (winner gets 2 weeks of avatar control)--Lost.
fatslob-:O said:
Flu viruses also thrive in the cold as evidenced by the illnesses near the winter season ... And cancer growth is shown to be worse in colder conditions too ... There's tons of infectious psychrophile's to be had too so your still far away from concluding that a hotter climate will negatively impact the spread of pathogens in the end ... |
I'm not trying to convince you. You are simply mistaken and trying to correct you.
My whole point is proven just with mosquitoes. They can carry West Nile Virus, Malaria, Dengue Fever, Chikungunya, Yellow Fever, and Dog Heartworm (my pets have gotten this). They thrive in warm and hot climates. They are almost impossible to avoid in tropical weather. They will spread further as the world gets warmer and be around for longer periods of time. They will spread the diseases they carry to new countries.
| Locknuts said: This seems to be a sensitive issue for some people as it's become a political issue rather than a scientific one. I have become fascinated as I have watched this whole thing play out. I looked into the science. Seemed legit. Co2 is a greenhouse gas (ie it traps and radiates heat), that is a fact and something that can be demonstrated in a lab environment. There is also a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. Not only that, but the computer models appeared to be predicting an increase in global temperatures fairly well for a while. But then something strange happened.... Observations started deviating from the predictions of the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so they quietly began lowering their short and medium term expected temperature rises. But the alarmism seemed to get more drastic instead of dying down. People were and still are heavily emotionally invested in the idea that man made CO2 emissions are going to destroy the planet, despite the latest observations and peer reviewed literature showing that less alarm is actually warranted. Not only that, but many powerful people and organisations are now heavily financially invested in carbon markets and other such schemes. A paper titled 'The Consensus Project was trotted out in 2013 by John Cook et al. in the hope that if the public saw that there was a 'scientific consensus' on man made climate change then they would take it as gospel and insist that their governments take action. I have seen an interview with him where he stated that this was the purpose of his paper. I'm sure many of you have heard of the '97% consensus'. This is where that number came from, but the number is misleading and misused. Please read the paper, or at least the abstract of the paper to see how they arrived at that particular number. President Obama tweeted the 97% number, added that man made emissions were also 'dangerous' (this isn't mentioned in the consensus project), and the world bought it. Instead of appealing to the data, there is an appeal to authority and consensus. That is not science, that's politics. Even if you do like to appeal to authority, most claim that the IPCC is the authority on man made global warming but do not actually read the literature from the IPCC (which is becoming less alarming with each report). Instead they listen to what politicians say about the IPCC literature. Since when are politicians ever truthful about anything? I prefer to look at the data and peer reviewed literature, which indicates that the climate is far less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought, and that the atmosphere is far more complex than it was previously understood to be. What do you think? Am I wrong? Is an apocalypse coming? I get the feeling some people are so devoted to the solution, that they are failing to see that it is becoming a less urgent problem. |
Please explain why you think an appeal to authority is problematic when they are an actual authority?
You're thinking of an appeal to authority fallacy wherein one cites for instance an eminent physicist for a topic in which they are not credentialed as gospel.
97% consensus is fairly close to reality. If you include all of the published scientists from that study (they filtered for top 10% I believe) the figure only moves to 91%. It's been a while since I've had to bother dealing with deniers, so feel free to check my maths or really my memory.
The hysteria was not promulgated by scientists, it was put forth by media outlets. Let's at least criticize the appropriate culprits here.
While I do not hold to alarmism, it's actually quite obvious that we're contributing to climate change for reasons you even mention in your post. However, you seem to be committing an ignoratio elenchi fallacy by failing to acknowledge what I will call the "tipping point".
Suppose that you drop a bath tub in the middle of the rain forest. It rains, water goes in, it evaporates in the heat, repeat. Now, some person comes by and drops a glass of water into that tub every day. Now we've upset the natural cycle. If it continues in this manner, eventually the tub will be overflowing. That is really the fear. It becomes an unmanageable situation, a runaway effect.
Your comments about an apocalypse are again unscientific, this is nothing but media presence.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
