Climate change

[beanna]

28 minutes ago, Pozlover1 said:

I don’t know either, but there’s a lot of that desire going around these days. You are not alone.  This might be the only rational, sane and normal reaction to the condition of the world today. 

it is the only rational as well going under our own terms,cause not much time left till catastrohic effects of climate change it is unstopable now,too late damage done that is cause we just await major effects now

[Pozlover1]

44 minutes ago, beanna said:

it is the only rational as well going under our own terms,cause not much time left till catastrohic effects of climate change it is unstopable now,too late damage done that is cause we just await major effects now

I believe climate change is cyclical and there are people using it as an excuse for the UN to start collecting taxes as a One World Government. Evidence for this? They target only the USA while ignoring the actual worse polluters, China and India.  But the end result on my attitude is identical,  even though I’m sensing more of an economic calamity as the USA’s karma comes due from decades of theft  by military and subversive violence.

I believe my solution of having sex whenever, with interesting people, while ignoring all diseases, has been the healthiest use of my time and effort and provided the optimism needed to sustain life in the face of adversity.  

[beanna]

1 hour ago, Pozlover1 said:

I believe climate change is cyclical and there are people using it as an excuse for the UN to start collecting taxes as a One World Government. Evidence for this? They target only the USA while ignoring the actual worse polluters, China and India.  But the end result on my attitude is identical,  even though I’m sensing more of an economic calamity as the USA’s karma comes due from decades of theft  by military and subversive violence.

I believe my solution of having sex whenever, with interesting people, while ignoring all diseases, has been the healthiest use of my time and effort and provided the optimism needed to sustain life in the face of adversity.  

if you understood ecology,metreolgy,evolution,bio chemistry,the natural world then the facts pertaining to climate change are irrefutiable,in fact all graphs associated with studying and recording of such reveals the undernoted

climate change graphs are now expendential and there are no known instances of any graph on any matter whatsoever that once expendential NOTHING CAN AVOID THE RESULTS

i concur re.THE KARMA OF THE USA,all quite simple it is called CAUSE and EFFECT,something very few in the West or modern homosapiens can understand it,s sheer simplicity  

GREED is one of the major factors driving all this there are 2 rules for humanity 1) do nothing to harm the ground upon which you stand

                                                                                                                               2) ditto for the air that you breathe

WHY.because there shall ALWAYS BE ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE,S NEED 

        but NEVER ENOUGH FOR ANYONE,S GREED EVEN FOR ONLY 1 GREEDY PERSON

[Guest BreedMeInVegas]

On 10/14/2019 at 3:34 PM, beanna said:

if you understood ecology,metreolgy,evolution,bio chemistry,the natural world then the facts pertaining to climate change are irrefutiable,in fact all graphs associated with studying and recording of such reveals the undernoted

climate change graphs are now expendential and there are no known instances of any graph on any matter whatsoever that once expendential NOTHING CAN AVOID THE RESULTS

i concur re.THE KARMA OF THE USA,all quite simple it is called CAUSE and EFFECT,something very few in the West or modern homosapiens can understand it,s sheer simplicity  

GREED is one of the major factors driving all this there are 2 rules for humanity 1) do nothing to harm the ground upon which you stand

                                                                                                                               2) ditto for the air that you breathe

WHY.because there shall ALWAYS BE ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE,S NEED 

        but NEVER ENOUGH FOR ANYONE,S GREED EVEN FOR ONLY 1 GREEDY PERSON

I love how the climate change believers love to site science and irrefutable facts, yet there is one simple consideration they either avoid, or don't understand.

Recoded weather data goes back at the most 140-150 years.  Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 BILLION years old.  From a statistical standpoint, using 150 years of data to predict what a 14.5 BILLION year old planet will do, is not very sound science at all.  Predictions on what the earth will do is nothing but a guessing game, you can't even suggest it's an educated guess simply because there is not enough data to do so.  These guesses about what the climate will do is the same predictions that told us the ozone layer would disappear by the year 2000, or how in 12 years we'll be doomed.

One simple way to look at it when you see a daily temperature almost break a record high.  Then you see that record goes back to the early to mid 1900's.  If the earth is continually heating up, why aren't we setting new record highs every few years instead of 50-60 years, and sometimes we set them every few years?

The earth goes through cycles, ever heard of the ice age?  What ended the ice age, couldn't have been man made climate change unless the cave men had SUVs or were drinking out of plastic straws right?

And in regards to the biggest polluters, the US is not one of them.  80% of the trash in the ocean comes from 1000 rivers around the world, most of which are in Africa, and Asia.  The other 20% come from the other 30,000 rivers around the world.  China and India account for most of the air pollution in the world, yet climate treaties never specifically target them.

[funpozbottom]

On 11/23/2019 at 8:17 AM, BreedMeInVegas said:

I love how the climate change believers love to site science and irrefutable facts, yet there is one simple consideration they either avoid, or don't understand.

Recoded weather data goes back at the most 140-150 years.  Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 BILLION years old.  From a statistical standpoint, using 150 years of data to predict what a 14.5 BILLION year old planet will do, is not very sound science at all.  Predictions on what the earth will do is nothing but a guessing game, you can't even suggest it's an educated guess simply because there is not enough data to do so.  These guesses about what the climate will do is the same predictions that told us the ozone layer would disappear by the year 2000, or how in 12 years we'll be doomed.

One simple way to look at it when you see a daily temperature almost break a record high.  Then you see that record goes back to the early to mid 1900's.  If the earth is continually heating up, why aren't we setting new record highs every few years instead of 50-60 years, and sometimes we set them every few years?

The earth goes through cycles, ever heard of the ice age?  What ended the ice age, couldn't have been man made climate change unless the cave men had SUVs or were drinking out of plastic straws right?

And in regards to the biggest polluters, the US is not one of them.  80% of the trash in the ocean comes from 1000 rivers around the world, most of which are in Africa, and Asia.  The other 20% come from the other 30,000 rivers around the world.  China and India account for most of the air pollution in the world, yet climate treaties never specifically target them.

I am not an expert on climate but I can try to explain how some of the claims and predictions come about.

You say recorded weather data goes back about 140 years. It is true that "official" records for the United States only go back about that far. (The National Weather Service was created in 1890). There are however earlier local records plus records in European countries plus anecdotal records from diaries and crop reports. For even earlier data, scientists can examine core data (ice cores, sediment deposits, tree rings, etc) to determine climate data. That is of course inference and not hard data, plus it's only applicable to that one location, but with enough samples it can be useful to help determine trends and changes in climates.

You used the example of a daily record high temperature. Climate science isn't really concerned with daily fluctuations. Instead, it looks at trends based on a yearly average. If you add up all the high temperatures (and all the lows) and divide by the number of days, you end up with an average temperature for the year. If you compare that to previous years you can see whether the average temperature is trending up or down.

You said the earth goes through cycles. That in absolutely 100% true.  That's what makes climate science so difficult. Trying to separate naturally occurring cycles from man-made influences is what most of the debate is about. Data shows there is a correlation between the rise of industrialization and the rise in average global temperatures. It does not mean that one definitely caused the other, but that is the assumption and what the theory is based on.

Finally, you question who the biggest polluters are and ask why the U.S. is targeted. This has to do with the amount of pollution generated in relation to the size of it's population. If everything were equal, you would expect the amount of pollution a country produces to be proportional to the size of it's population. For example, China has 18.2% of the world population but accounts for 29.3% of carbon pollution so their output is higher than would be expected if everything were equal. India on the other hand, has 17.5% of the world population but accounts for only 6.6% of carbon pollution so much lower than you might expect. The United Sates is targeted because it only has 4.3% of the world population but accounts for 13.8% of carbon pollution -- second highest only behind China. But if you look at it on a per person basis, the U.S. produces three times the average so it's producing more carbon pollution per person than any other country. You see similar statistics if you look at the amount of plastics and other waste generated. China produces the most waste but if you divide it by population it ends up being about a half pound of waste per person per day. For India, it's about a quarter pound. For the United States, it's over a pound of trash per person per day. That said, the United States is far better at recycling and not dumping it all in the oceans, but it still could do a lot to reduce the amount of pollution that is created. Both China and the United States are the biggest polluters and changes in those countries would have the biggest impact on global pollution. One problem is that those two countries also drive the world economy so while reduced consumption would reduce pollution, it would also depress world economies. But that is a separate topic for debate.

As I said, I'm not an expert and I'm not saying any claims or predictions are true, I'm merely explaining the process and reasoning behind some of the claims that have been made.

[Ranger Rick]

It's just weird how the solutions pushed by the Climate Change activists are invariably political, invariably authoritarian, and invariably socialist. If human activity were driving global warming, than the solution would be scientific and engineering. Yet, you've got Greta "Scoldilocks" Thunberg screeching about colonialism and the Green New Deal that was full of sh-t like "universal guaranteed incomes" and "Government provided daycare" that have exactly shit to do with climate. 

[luvPOZass]

On 12/8/2019 at 3:54 PM, Ranger Rick said:

It's just weird how the solutions pushed by the Climate Change activists are invariably political, invariably authoritarian, and invariably socialist. If human activity were driving global warming, than the solution would be scientific and engineering. Yet, you've got Greta "Scoldilocks" Thunberg screeching about colonialism and the Green New Deal that was full of sh-t like "universal guaranteed incomes" and "Government provided daycare" that have exactly shit to do with climate. 

Scoldilocks 😂😂😂

[Guest hungandmean]

Wow.

This site continues to be one of the funniest fucking place on the internet. The absolute weirdest, kinkiest, gay men who have no suspension of disbelief when it comes to blowing 20 strangers anonymously and letting them in piss in them bareback are a Venn Diagram circle with the people who think that climate change isn't real, and Trump is great, and maybe those poor kids belong in cages and should starve to death anyways. 

 

There was literally just testimony under oath from executives/scientists for the Oil companies, that said that the scientists predicted that our reliance on fossil fuels was fucking up the environment, and that it would cause the effects we're seeing today. 

 

 

 

 

[dirtyarizona]

Oh, right, & everybody knows that "testimony under oath from executives/scientists for the Oil companies" could never ever ever be less than 100% truthful, right?

[TTFN]

39 minutes ago, dirtyarizona said:

Oh, right, & everybody knows that "testimony under oath from executives/scientists for the Oil companies" could never ever ever be less than 100% truthful, right?

Oh yes, very much like career politicians "promises" to get reelected.

The climate has been changing since the beginning of time and will continue to do so, too much emphasis is put on so called "computer models" that can be made to predict whatever outcome they want.

I am well old enough to remember that the same scientists that are at present predicting global warming, oops sorry it is now climate change in the early 70s were predicting the coming ice age, that never materialized either.

[drscorpio]

What I don't get is why people worry so much about the possibility of climate change being a hoax. What would be so bad if we moved away from fossil fuels and developed new, cleaner technologies? Fossil fuels are a dead end; eventually we will use them all up. What we don't want is to be the last nation trying to make them work while everyone else is moving into future technologies. Coal has pretty much destroyed itself; it's so dirty that we already have cleaner ways to make electricity. I remember how polluted everything was in the late 60s-early 70s. It took a whole lot of work to clean things up. Let's not fuck things back up. 

[Pozlover1]

4 hours ago, drscorpio said:

What I don't get is why people worry so much about the possibility of climate change being a hoax. What would be so bad if we moved away from fossil fuels and developed new, cleaner technologies? Fossil fuels are a dead end; eventually we will use them all up. What we don't want is to be the last nation trying to make them work while everyone else is moving into future technologies. Coal has pretty much destroyed itself; it's so dirty that we already have cleaner ways to make electricity. I remember how polluted everything was in the late 60s-early 70s. It took a whole lot of work to clean things up. Let's not fuck things back up. 

Because it’s being used as an excuse to start a UN tax that won’t do anything to clean up the real polluters in China, India, Brazil and Africa. It looks like Big Oil has already seen the future and is investing in alternatives. The profit motive always works. All the Government cares about is war and control, they cannot be trusted to clean things up. 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Pozlover1

[Ranger Rick]

"Green energy" is not necessarily clean energy. The extraction of rare Earth metals and lithium does environmental damage that far exceeds the damage caused by fossil fuels. Wind and solar are devastating to wildlife, especially bats and migratory birds. There's also the issue of the child slave labor used to mine the metals used in car batteries. ([think before following links] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/09/the-dark-side-of-electric-cars-exploitative-labor-practices/)

The trillions of dollars spent switching to "green" energy that is worse for the environment than hydrocarbons would be better spent cleaning ocean pollution or providing clean water to the developing world. 

 

 

[TTFN]

Zero emissions cars are a fallacy, the energy does not just magically appear out of nothing, the pollution is just moved out of sight elsewhere.

Your Tesla would not go far relying only on solar and wind.

When power is most needed the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing.

[viking8x6]

OK, this is for everyone on both sides here: Quit spouting talking points and cite some damn sources. Otherwise, to quote Monty Python, "That's not argument; it's just contradiction." I believe it's possible to have a meaningful discussion on this topic, but y'all are not doing it.