Climate Change is a load of crp

maxx

There is a huge differenc ebetween weather and climate change. All throughout  the history ofvthe world,  earth has gone through many changes of climate and will continue to do so. Perhaps you should lookup the science and understand exactly what climate change is first.  @Hitcounter

just_sayin

@Hitcounter
The vast majority of evidence does indicate that human activities regarding CO2 have had an impact on the climate.  Now, if the claim was that much of the 'solutions' for climate change will not result in any noticeable temperature changes and much of what is proposed is just wealth redistribution that will not fix the problem I could agree with you.

From Heritage on the Green New Deal:

In fact, the U.S. could cut its carbon dioxide emissions 100 percent and it would not make a difference in abating global warming.
Using the same climate sensitivity (the warming effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions) as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its modeling, the world would be only 0.137 degree Celsius cooler by 2100. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278 degree Celsius by the turn of the century. 

So, if if there were zero CO2 emissions in the world, the global temperature will still increase and only be lower than the estimated increase by 0.278 degree Celsius in 2100.  Many of the quadrillion dollar plans won't change the estimated increase in global temperatures by .001 degree Celsius.  Anyway, zero CO2 emissions world wide is an unrealistic goal, as many countries need energy to rise out of third-world status.  So the problem will continue to get worse before it gets better.  That does not mean that there is nothing that can be done -we can continue research for clean renewable energies - especially making them affordable options.  We can take mitigating steps.  But the idea of a quick fix is a lie and not every scheme that comes along makes practical sense when you do a cost/benefit analysis.

MayCaesar

There is a lot to unpack here, but your argument compares apples to oranges. One of the most fundamental results in statistics is that averages are much more stable than individual values. In particular, the average temperature over a long period of time is much more stable, than the temperature at a given point in time.

It is much easier to predict the change in the average yearly temperature in a year given the data over the past few years, than the change of temperature tomorrow given the data over the past week. The latter is highly volatile: the temperature at 2 pm tomorrow in my area, for instance, can be anywhere between 55 F and 95 F. The former is highly stable: the error bar of the prediction will likely be less than 1 F.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Counterhit.

@Hitcounter

What exactly is "costing us all our future"?


People who seriously monitor global environmental trends have noticed changes.

Whereas gullible people who monitor social media bullcr*p, have a tendency to always want to believe conspiracy theory. Such people also often have a tendency to despise scientific study and it's exponents.


There are many factors that may threaten your future, and I doubt that climate change is the biggest threat.

 

maxx

Evidence - NASA Science @Hitcounter

Bogan

@just_sayin

JS quote   The vast majority of evidence does indicate that human activities regarding CO2 have had an impact on the climate. 

 To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence whatsoever that human activities are causing climate change.     All there is, is speculation, and “computer modelling.”    The earth is in a natural warming period which just happens to be right on schedule.      Nobody can say whether human activities are increasing that warming.     Here is the 2001 first report by the UN International Panel of Climate Change working party.

 

 

 

 JS quote           Now, if the claim was that much of the 'solutions' for climate change will not result in any noticeable temperature changes and much of what is proposed is just wealth redistribution that will not fix the problem I could agree with you.

 There is a lot more to this hoax than that, but as for wealth redistribution, here is a statement from an Interview with Dr Ottmar Endenhofer, IPCC, co-chair of working group 3, November 13, 2010,      "We (UN-IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.....   One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.    This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."      

 

JS quote  So, if if there were zero CO2 emissions in the world, the global temperature will still increase and only be lower than the estimated increase by 0.278 degree Celsius in 2100. 

 The temperature of the earth will increase because that is what has happened during the last 10 warming events since the last mini ice age.    The previous 1000 year warming cycles indicate that the temperature of the earth will rise at least another degree or two before it falls again.    And every climate scientist on earth knows that.   They also know that almost all people are ignorant of the earth’s climate history, so they can tell the peasants anything.  

Factfinder

Seems most everyone agrees that climate change is real. We all just don't agree on the cause or the severity. So it's not a load of crap. Smoggy cities and low line regions are affecting the environments locally so we do need to transition from fossil fuels anyway. And if you agree climate change is real why argue against the fact the seas are rising? They are you know so why not prepare? I don't mean pay the globalist their scam money, I mean realize if you have a house on the beach, it might not be there to leave for your children.

I passed a woman walking her dog and asked her about the homes. “There used to be two streets of houses in front of these homes,” she told me. “Now they’re oceanfront.”
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/cant-see-sea-level-rise-youre-looking-in-the-wrong-place/

Bogan

. “There used to be two streets of houses in front of these homes,” she told me. “Now they’re oceanfront.”

That is called "coastal erosion."

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

A lot of the alleged effects of climate change people are pointing out have nothing to do with it. It is as poor an argument as that of the Republican congressman that in March came into the Congress holding a snowball and said, "See? This proves that global warming is not real".

The change in average global temperatures of 0.1 Celsius per decade absolutely will not destroy anyone's coastline property within a few years. It is much like that girl from Germany that once told me, "You know, when I was a kid, Berlin was perpetually covered in snow in the winter. Now we barely see any snow". Change by 0.2 degrees cannot cause that; solar cycles, on the other hand, can, and those humans cannot affect at present.

Coasts are intrinsically unstable: they are affected by tidal patterns (that also have all kinds of cycles), micro-earthquakes, underground water currents... This is why coastal property has always been relatively cheap and so hard to insure - this is something even Homer wrote about, nearly 3,000 years ago.

To determine whether the climate is changing and how, global measurements over long periods of time have to be made. Simply looking at a couple of coasts that have been swallowed by the ocean is not going to cut it.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

A lot of the alleged effects of climate change people are pointing out have nothing to do with it. It is as poor an argument as that of the Republican congressman that in March came into the Congress holding a snowball and said, "See? This proves that global warming is not real".

The change in average global temperatures of 0.1 Celsius per decade absolutely will not destroy anyone's coastline property within a few years. It is much like that girl from Germany that once told me, "You know, when I was a kid, Berlin was perpetually covered in snow in the winter. Now we barely see any snow". Change by 0.2 degrees cannot cause that; solar cycles, on the other hand, can, and those humans cannot affect at present.

Coasts are intrinsically unstable: they are affected by tidal patterns (that also have all kinds of cycles), micro-earthquakes, underground water currents... This is why coastal property has always been relatively cheap and so hard to insure - this is something even Homer wrote about, nearly 3,000 years ago.

To determine whether the climate is changing and how, global measurements over long periods of time have to be made. Simply looking at a couple of coasts that have been swallowed by the ocean is not going to cut it.

I agree the coastlines themselves are far from any proof man caused climate change and I certainly wasn't asserting that's why it's happening. That wasn't the intent. We know the climate has cycles as ice core samples prove. What all the liberals got all charged up about was how modern equipment/instruments taking measurements presently showed a sharp increase, though to be honest all measurements shown and discussed are minutely tiny.

No my post was intended to approach climate change in a more practical way. That's why I mentioned what people generally concede to, (climate change happens in cycles), and what they generally argue against, (man isn't the cause and globalist tax schemes are just meant to fleece wealth from the first world nations, America in particular). Thus my advice, prepare, your beach front property might not be available to leave for your kids. Oh and of course I suggested to the affect not to pay elitists scammers around the world. 

I also alluded to a transition from fossil fuels to cleaner more abundant ways of producing and harnessing energy as something we should be working on anyway as that's the next logical step for us in an advanced society. We can't just continue to burn a finite source of energy when we know for a fact it pollutes the air we breathe so badly. We don't have to destroy the economy because we have time. Any deadline we set is arbitrary so we can build the infrastructure then transition.  

I hope I explained my position better this time because I believe approaching climate change from a political stand point makes everyone losers except a very few. 

Joeseph

Yet ....

NASA

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

I'm no expert on this topic and feel myself pulled both ways on what to believe yet I have to reasonably ask myself why would NASA and all these academics, scientists and scientific bodies deliberately claim one thing when the reverse might be true?

What really gets me is the cost of so called green technology its outrageously priced.

At the moment in the Republic of Ireland bycyle lanes are being built throughout the country for the last 15 years its never ending , cylists are given preference owners of cars are reduced to one lane driving systems as other lanes have been taken for pedestrians and cyclists.

Electric scooters can drive over here uninsured and some are doing speeds of 80 km an hour ,cyclists and scooter owners are never in the wrong if an accident takes place as green policies are seen almost in a religious light.

I suspect vast fortunes are being made by so called green interests so I find myself conflicted on the subject.

Bogan

Joseph quote  Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

The figure of 97% of climate scientist agree with anthropogenic global warming has often ben bandied about by alarmists.      But nobody knows who conducted this mysterious poll , how many scientists were polled, or if there was a secret ballot.        The fact that scientists have been intimidated by the people who either grant their stipends, or  who control their careers, was exposed by the  “Climategate” emails.    Here is an email from the head of the East Anglia Climate Research Institute to a college which questioned whether “Saiers” was toeing the woke party line. 

 

 

Joseph quote  Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

 The leading climate research institutes are all left leaning academics and public servants, who are providing their leftist governments which employ them the means to scare the public into paying higher taxes, while keeping fossil fuels for the exclusive use of the rich and powerful jet setters.     The poor can eat lithium.          

Joeseph

@Bogan

Ahh right , I get it , it's a worldwide leftist plot that NASA backs also ......thanks for the heads up ......

Factfinder

@Joeseph

I also think along the same lines. It is real. What did we do to impact it? How much? How much can we affect a reversal, if any? All are questions just meant to create hysteria. Fact is we can see the pollution fossil fuels cause and we know they're not in infinite supply so we need to transition to cleaner, renewable energy anyway. We're human, we scam each other and everyone wants a piece of the action and we're political so we will do it the slow painful, expensive way instead of the mature steady, practical way. Liberals over here are into bike lanes as well. Too bad they don't  invest tax payer money into infrastructure for the future instead of painting bike lanes into the past.

Joeseph

@Factfinder

Well said I'm on the same page. We are not a cycling nation over here , I'm 8 miles from city centre and we have a bike lane both sides of the road all the way in I've never seen more than 6 cyclists both sides of road in years of going in , it's nuts.

Liberalism is the latest worldwide phobia and its totally out of control there are virtue signalling in every walk of life over here and I think it's far from progressive it's actually regressive.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey Joe.

@Joeseph

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Depends upon who is paying them.