Climate change

[Guest RawCunt]

On 12/24/2019 at 11:18 AM, MackyJay said:

There was NO SUCH BRIBE OF IRAN, than was proven false a long time ago now.  Just a conservative lie, again.  And Iran did not ignore anything and only TRUMP FOOLS believe they weren't complying as all check from many countries PROVED they were honoring their commitment.   

The 150 billion wasn't the cash bribe people talked about.  That was money the Carter administration with held from Iran, in which Obama did release to Iran

Secondly the agreement was worthless.   The only reference in it in regards to Iran not trying to make nuclear weapons is in the preamble of the agreement, which is basically worthless.  Which is why they were caught testing ballistic missiles 7 times within a year of the agreement being signed, by German intelligence which makes your "proved" comment false  And what also makes it false is that under that agreement,  no American IAEA inspectors are allowed, only those who came from countries with diplomatic relations with Iran.  They then opened another centrifuge within 2 years, and blocked IAEA inspectors from visiting suspected military  nuclear program sites.   The agreement also allowed Iran to bypass UN sanctions and Arms trading sanctions.

In regards to the "bribe" that was written off as exchange for US hostages by Obama.

So before rambling off you trump fools diatribe, at least have some form of a clue what the hell you are talking about.

[Guest RawCunt]

On 12/24/2019 at 8:03 AM, MackyJay said:

I seem to see almost as many deniers on here as those who use their brains to see what is happening.  Most of the deniers want to point to millions of years of changes.  Ice age, for one, and say it ended with no man made heating.  There have been many changes over the years and scientists CAN track those changes and have and most climate changes have taken literally centuries to change, but now change towards climate change is happening over 100 times faster than it ever has in the past.  Man made all the way and proven.  They went to the poles to check ice and what did they find?  Where snow and ice should be very bright white, which bounces the suns rays off are now mostly gray and in some areas black which aborbs the sun's rays therefore heating the polar ice.  When they checked the 'stuff' covering the ice, it was found to be residue expelled into the air from CARBON EMISSIONS which are almost all caused by HUMANS BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.  Irrefutable evidence and supported by more than 97% of the scientists of the world.  Only ones actually denying it are those who have not checked it or just want their names posted somewhere.   Climate change IS REAL and it IS CAUSED BY MAN and anyone denying it is just being very dumb.  Sorry if that insults some but that is the only conclusion to come from deniers.

 

That is a load of utter garbage.   C02 levels in the atmosphere are less than 4% and even the most hardened climate activist scientist admit that humans have contributed to less than 1% of that,   The problem with all these current "scientific"  studies, is that they were in reverse to scientific studies.  They have their answer then set out to create the data to prove their point, generally because they rely on funding by those demanding the science serve their agenda, which is wealth distribution and global governance.   All these mad predictions have been going on for a century.   In the early 1900's they were saying Britain will be under water by 2010.   John Kerry made millions telling us all the polar caps will be melted by 2013 based on scientific certainty. 

Dire famine was going to ensue by 1975, and forced sterilization may have to be imposed upon the population as the US is already over populated -Las Angeles Times 1967.  

In 1969 the New york times wrote the within 20 years we are all going to die in a cloud of blue steam. 

The Boston globe 1970.... said that air pollution will kill the sun and a new ice age will commence. 

All the oceans will be as dead as lake Eire in less than 10 years... 1970

!980 the Canberra times stated within 30 years 1196 islands would be under water within 30 years due to rising seas.

And there is hundreds of these "scientific" predictions/ propoganda going back a century,   The only conclusive fact about them all, is they are all supposedly based on science, and they all appear in left leaning media.

[iman2004]

On 11/23/2019 at 1:17 PM, 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.

Actually recorded climate change data goes back much longer than this as we can confidently talk about palaeoclimate conditions back to the Tertiary (c. 6o million years) and fairly confidently back to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction c. 250 million years ago based on geological evidence (from rocks) and ice core data for the last 2 million years or so. You are also confusing two issues here as pollution e.g. plastics in ocean, air quality, landfill etc is not the same as climate change but they are linked on a very broad scale. Equally the destruction of the ozone layer was more or less halted by a worldwide ban on CFC use. The Ozone hole has been shrinking - although you can still end up toasted in sunshine in Southern New Zealand or Patagonia. Again, this is not a climate change issue.

You are right that climate change occurs naturally. However, we know from geological evidence and looking at oxygen isotopes in ice cores that the rates of climate change in the geological past happened over periods of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of years. The rate at which climate change is happening now, if seen on a geological timescale would be instantaneous. Many climate change skeptics cite the very high CO2 levels at the end of the Permian period as evidence that life continues at higher CO2 levels but the Permo-Triassic mass extinction eliminated 90% of life on earth and was a much more catastrophic extinction than the one that killed the dinosaurs. The other thing to point out is that 252 million years ago we did not have extensive elements of critical infrastructure on the coast nor did we have huge sectors of the population living close to or below sea level. The reality is that no attempt is being made to model the next 4.5 billion years. Climate change impact models are constructed for a few hundred to a couple of thousand years and there are good temperature data from human records and ice cores for these timescales.

The science here is actually pretty robust. The data since mid 19th century is good, there is a physical mechanism that explains how change is happening and the modelled physics/chemistry fits the observed data. All of that makes a much stronger case than than picking up odd bits of the science here and there because those elements fit a narrative. The climate does show natural variability, that  is evident in the data, but the trend is very clearly a warming one. That does not mean we won't get cold weather!

The issue that international treaties don't specifically target China and India as major polluters is correct and remains a problem. The argument from India and China of "we deserve the economic development that oil/gas/coal brought you" is absolutely fatuous. The fact is we did not know what we were doing during the industrial revolution. However, it is worth noting that the city of Shenzhen in China which has a population of about 12 million now has an entirely electric public transport system. Much of this is driven by the desperately bad air quality but it clearly has climate change benefits as well. It's not clear that India is quite so advanced in its efforts.

 

[TTFN]

5 hours ago, iman2004 said:

. You are also confusing two issues here as pollution e.g. plastics in ocean, air quality, landfill etc is not the same as climate change but they are linked on a very broad scale.

In 100 years or less companies will be making millions mining them for the "gold" they contain.

[iman2004]

On 1/1/2020 at 5:06 PM, TTFN said:

In 100 years or less companies will be making millions mining them for the "gold" they contain.

absolutely. This is also the argument against permanent disposal of radioactive waste; in 500 years it will be resource not pollution.

[Guest]

On 10/14/2019 at 8:05 AM, 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.  

Since you want to sustain life does this mean you get women pregnant?