If I'm not mistaken, CO2 emissions is primarily what we were talking about...Originally Posted by TheHumanAlphabet
If I'm not mistaken, CO2 emissions is primarily what we were talking about...
Last edited by Eielson; 5/4/2015 at 10:52 AM.
Eielson-I wasn't trying to paint a straw man for you or state you are a dem...I really don't care about political affiliations on AGW although you can certainly tell which party supports it and doesn't.
You had stated that the Koch's were scum for their paid for analysis of AGW and I merely showed that the "pro" side of AGW had its own BS out there like Al Gore claiming the north pole would be melted by 2012.
95% of scientists may agree on GW or AGW but there is nowhere close to a consensus on a number of critical elements pertaining to GW/AGW such as how much does man contribute, how much is naturally occurring, what is the tipping point, how much does water vapor play in the warming cycle, etc...
As I said I prefer to err on the side of caution and I support taking reasonable steps on a global basis to reduce man's footprint...just not going it alone when we might be the only one's getting our economy killed and doing little to change GW/AGW.
Last edited by okie52; 5/4/2015 at 02:37 PM.
tIf I'm not mistaken, CO2 emissions is primarily what we were talking about...
There is much more to AGW besides CO2. CO2 alone does not account for the events the models try to mimic. I refer to the temperature data that has seen most of the falsification. This data is needed to drive the models. I dont think at this time, co2 will get you to the model results alone.
From an AGW standpoint, acidification of the ocean and disruption of the saline currents would need further research and IMO a concern.
Everything progressives do is aimed at weakening democracy, capitalism and the social and cultural institutions that support those things...... They are about subjugating people and being a ruling class.
Happy Birthday 52!!
Another aspect of all of this that is disturbing to me is the "sense of urgency" that is always rolled out by the left and the "science is settled" argument that always use. Is science ever settled? I thought it was always evolving, affected by the methodologies in gathering data, the quality of equipment used to gather and analyze data, and the expertise of those evaluating data. Obviously there have been millions if not billions earned by some who have benefited by the "Climate Change" hysteria.
I have come to the conclusion that the urgency that every one of these alarmists exhibits makes one believe that this has to be done now...before contrary information and conclusions about this science are reached. And it doesn't help their cause in that the ringleader of this group is a politician with zero scientific credentials who has made millions from this hysteria he has helped to create and whose reputation and integrity is anything but beyond reproach.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-----Winston Churchill
BINGO!
How do you know if you get there, if you don't know where you are going?..oh and I had 1,713 post on the "other board"..I hate being a rookie again!
Gracias Champs.
Sometimes the the truth is inconvenient...even for Gore.
So, rain forests serve a purpose to help moderate the atmosphere. Is that inaccurate?
My view on the climate is not scientific. From my various reading on the topic I think that man has minimal impact. The influence of the sun trumps anything that we do with regard to "warming". I think there's more to it than just "warming". I just worry that when we clear cut forests and ignore what goes into our ground/water that then goes out to sea that we don't know the outcome. I'm afraid that we are impairing the earth's ability to heal itself or adapt the way the good Lord designed it. Watching video of the flattening and burning of rain forests is disheartening.
I fully get that just the environmental activity of the US alone is not that big of a deal. I don't know the answer. I don't think carbon credits is the way to go. I do think facilitating more efficiency in our world makes sense.
---Carbon Credits is one of the stupidest ideas ever
SN, i was referring to your comment that politicians are there to help or protect you...they are only interested in maintaining power...they will grab at anything and say anything in order to get you to relinquish your power to them. Rain forests not withstanding.
Personally, i am not in disagreement with you regarding ecosystem interconnectedness. They are systems that have evolved to work well. A managed use is what we should strive for.
Gore is an arse and a thief.
Everything progressives do is aimed at weakening democracy, capitalism and the social and cultural institutions that support those things...... They are about subjugating people and being a ruling class.
well, the op went from comparing the hypocrisy of the one of the biggest left wing supporters in Soros (in using the gov loopholes as many wealthy pubs do) to climate change! lol...
As a pub, I'm all for protecting the earth, it's natural resources...I fish, like to hunt...boat..jeep wheeling...etc.
The problem is obama and the dem are selling out this country thinking china/india/russia any of those other countries are going to do the same...lol...what a bunch of morons.
So maybe the climate is changing...you realize the earth has always changed? In the timeline of the earth (according to "scientist" that libs love to use) mankind is only a sliver/edge of a fingernail if the timeline is from wrist to edge of middle finger. On top of that, that is MANKIND'S existence....so take the last 100 yrs for industrial revolution...and that is responsible for GW? right...
How do you know if you get there, if you don't know where you are going?..oh and I had 1,713 post on the "other board"..I hate being a rookie again!
I'm referring to "government" as a body of "us" and not as a mix of politicians.
I'm not saying Koch is the only guilty party in this. I just think he is funding research for no other reason than his own selfish greed, and that makes him scum in my book. I'm not a big fan of Gore, either.
True.95% of scientists may agree on GW or AGW but there is nowhere close to a consensus on a number of critical elements pertaining to GW/AGW such as how much does man contribute, how much is naturally occurring, what is the tipping point, how much does water vapor play in the warming cycle, etc...
I absolutely agree that this is a global thing. We're only responsible for about 16% of CO2 emissions in the world, which is a lot, but very little would happen if we were the only country to reduce it's CO2 emissions. China is responsible for about 50% more than us, but from a per capita standpoint, we're about 3 times as bad. I'm not saying there is an easy answer to this, or that we should make something happen overnight. I just think we should have the facts in the open, and not try to manipulate them to whatever suits our company the best.As I said I prefer to err on the side of caution and I support taking reasonable steps on a global basis to reduce man's footprint...just not going it alone when we might be the only one's getting our economy killed and doing little to change GW/AGW.
I'm not going to claim to know exactly what happens with insanely high amounts of CO2 emissions, and that's part of the problem. We know some of the negative effects it is having, and will continue to have, but there are a lot of other questions not yet answered. We're essentially rolling the dice and saying that we hope this doesn't completely ruin the one environment in our entire galaxy where human life is sustainable. At this point, I think we can safely assume that putting 2.4 million pounds of CO2 in the air every second is really, really bad. The only question is how bad, and I'm not eager to find out.
I guess it depends on what you truly mean by that statement on whether or not I agree with you. I agree that we're not going to ruin the planet in the next few years, and I certainly don't think we need to reduce CO2 emissions to zero this year. We need to start making progress now, though. Despite all the attention this topic has received globally, our global CO2 emissions still rose 3% last year, so it's clear that this topic is more urgent than we're treating it at the present moment. CO2 emissions need to halt, and eventually decrease.
It's easy to point to the fact that the United States was one of the only countries whose CO2 emissions decreased last year (Germany's also did, and UK's stabilized), and make China out to be the bad guys. The issue with that, though, is that we're still almost three times as bad as China per capita (it might be closer to twice as bad now).
This is another area where I have a problem. China and India want CO2 calculated on a per capita basis...well that's fine to some degree except it totally ignores the pollution created by their overpopulations. China is roughly the same size as the US in area and has 1.3 billion people compared to our 320 million. India is less than a 1/3 the size of the US in area and has 1.2 billion people. Europe is a high emitter too and has a population density comparable to China.
IMO population density needs to be factored into the equation.
On a positive note the US has been showing steady improvement on its emissions since 2005...a lot of that has to do with switching from coal to NG production for electricity.
Posting Permissions
