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

Forums - General Discussion - What do you think should be done about climate change?

numberwang said:
SpokenTruth said:

OK, before I actually address the thread question, I have a question for all the skeptics out there. 

Do you honestly believe all the climatologists, meteorologists, biologists, zoologists, chemists, geologists, physicists, glaciologists, atmospheric dynamacists, oceanographers, paleontologists, ecologists, biochemists, mathematicians, etc...from nearly 200 countries (some at war with each other) around the world that study and confer agreement based on their own independent, respective fields are all in on some grand hoax with the intent to deceive you?

The 97% consensus? That was a literal hoax by a man named Cook who pretended to have read 12K scientific papers (he lied). Only a small minority of researches actually support the "climate change is mostly (>50%) caused by anthropogenic CO2 + catastrophic" assumption. 

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus... Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

There is a only consensus that climate has always changed.

NASA seems to place credibility in that 97% figure, I think as an outlet they have more legitimacy over a website that looks like it was designed on Geocities by a teenager in the 90's that ONLY propagates anti-climate change rhetoric in order to reinforce other peoples confirmation biases.
 
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I mean for shits and giggles, from the website link you provided... They place more credibility in the Catholic Church over empirical scientific evidence, which is just bull-twiddle. - This is why we have people who believe the Earth is flat or that vaccines are toxic... Because people put more credibility in dubious sources of information.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/13/realist-catholic-climate-declaration/

Mr Puggsly said:

I'm suggesting the theories being thrown about arent necessarily the real ones. Ya know, like suggesting there is no future for teens. Instead the media likes to pick the most extreme scenarios to galvanize people often to support a certain party.

I think its funny people become defensive about science in general when Im talking about the stuff thats clearly bogus. In a nut shell, not all science is equal. I dont think all scientists have come to the same conclusion or recommend the same solutions, thats more vague.

The skeptics on climate change arent really skeptics per se. People can acknowledge it as a reality but not believe the propaganda as well. The repercussions of antivaxers is more obvious. Even the homeless situation has revived some classic diseases.

Some areas will see the impacts of climate change far more readily than other geographical areas, that's the reality of it all.

Those in the equatorial areas of the world on islands are feeling the pressures now, today... With increases in global temperatures resulting in higher sea-levels, essentially swallowing up their homes.
Those island states will be the first casualties of climate change and we as western nations will (sadly) need to open up our doors to let them migrate as they are going to be climate refugees.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/10/24/kiribati/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribati#Environmental_issues

So whilst the "extreme" claims propagated by some (For and against!) can be regarded as bullshit, the issues presented are often very real, it just depends on the time scales we are talking about.



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

Around the Network
Baalzamon said:
Woah woah woah, you just added substantial additional items to answer my question.

I'm not doubting changes in rainfall, population density increases, etc. These were completely and totally irrelevant to my question though.

I read through the 1st page of this thread, and one of the concerns was how much farm land would be lost because of the rise in sea levels. That just....doesn't make sense.

Be concerned about weather changes and what that might mean (to the applicable farm land as well), but don't include lost farm land as a major reason to specifically be worried about sea levels rising.

Well I didn't provide links so you can legitimately just disregard the rest.

Sea level rise itself won't be a major problem for farming worldwide overall for a very long time, but lower lying area's like rice fields in China for example, could become more of a problem over time. Right now they are working on GMO rice that can grow in brackish water because of this. What's ironic is rice paddies create significant amounts of methane gas that just contributes to climate change, so, what, to, do... 



SvennoJ said:
SpokenTruth said:

How did I miss this thread for this long? 

OK, before I actually address the thread question, I have a question for all the skeptics out there. 

Do you honestly believe all the climatologists, meteorologists, biologists, zoologists, chemists, geologists, physicists, glaciologists, atmospheric dynamacists, oceanographers, paleontologists, ecologists, biochemists, mathematicians, etc...from nearly 200 countries (some at war with each other) around the world that study and confer agreement based on their own independent, respective fields are all in on some grand hoax with the intent to deceive you?

The discussion nowadays is not so much about whether you 'believe' in climate change or not, it's whether you care enough to actually do something about it or not even think about it at all.

He, I race virtual cars instead of real cars, that's got to count for something!

I wish that were the case.  Just read this very thread.

numberwang said:

I happen to notice that all the "things to be done" are burdening exclusively the working and middle class. You can see that this was concocted by a ruling elite and sold as woke policy towards a urban clientele that is disconnected from nature.

Here are some things to be done:

1). Confiscate Al Gore's $100M oil money

2). Confiscate Di Caprio's car collection and private jet

3). Cut down spending for all the international institutions like UN, WB, etc. and use that money for:

4). Full tax deductions for small solar installation for home owners

5). Full tax deductions if you buy renewable energy from a producer

1). Are you referring to the Current TV sale to Al Jazeera Media Network?  There is certainly an odd contradiction of profit over idealism. The only real thing in his favor is actually another odd contradiction - Al Jazeera itself.  Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari government which is exceptionally well funded thanks to oil.  Obviously, this is where the criticism stems from.  But the contradiction is that Al Jazeera leans against it's own oil funding when it comes to climate change. they are pro-clean energy with dedicated sections for climate change on their media pages. Not saying it absolves Gore from his actions speaking louder than words but there is definitely more to it than just taking oil money.

2). Why?  He's donated or lead funding for more than the value of either toward climate change.  $100 million (there's that number again) is hardly insignificant.

3). What of UN would you want to cut?  UNICEF?  World Food Program? World Health Organization?  Food and Agriculture Program? The Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS? The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research? Refugee Program? World Bank (funny you say that as it's technically part of the UN)? International Atomic Energy Agency? How about the United Nations Environment Program?

4 and 5). We had that up to 30% but the Trump administration is allowing those tax incentives to sunset (that's the actual term, not an intended pun) with less incentives allowed each year over the next few years.  They are also harming the industry as solar panels were one of the first things they applied tariffs toward. But I do like your idea in itself.

While your intentions are good, why don't we start by getting rid of all the fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks and put those toward 4 and 5? 

numberwang said:

The 97% consensus? That was a literal hoax by a man named Cook who pretended to have read 12K scientific papers (he lied). Only a small minority of researches actually support the "climate change is mostly (>50%) caused by anthropogenic CO2 + catastrophic" assumption. 

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus... Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

There is a only consensus that climate has always changed.

Did you notice I never used that 97% figure you're citing?   Largely because that's 6 years old and a lot has changed in that time frame. But...I do believe the consensus from my aforementioned list definitely stands in the camp of anthropogenic climate change.

But I'm willing to challenge you.  I'll find X amount of research that supports anthropogenic climate change to your X that disproves anthropogenic climate change.  All papers must be peer reviewed and published by a journal from the Master Journal List from the past decade.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."