State of global climate

[w1z4rd]

You appear to be under the mistaken impression that I think your opinion will change because of my opinion lol. Anyway, I'll stick to the science as well.

Yeah, of course you will. We all totally believe you

 

[Techne]

Yeah, of course you will. We all totally believe you

Totally unnecessary attitude.

 

[w1z4rd]

Totally unnecessary attitude.

Sure, sure

 

[CommonSense]

Pollution is the problem and I agree we need to work towards cleaner, more efficient energy sources and usage. Taxing carbon is not optimal.

On the question of Taxing not being an optimal solution I can agree. But, it is a valid stick to use in getting heavy polluters to find better ways or curbing their emissions.

May I ask what evidence you are referring to? Any specific indicators you may have come across?

I am not a climate scientist, but I have read enough and seen enough evidence from reputable climate scientists who have convinced me. I admit there is a fringe community who disagrees, but they haven't supplied convincing evidence contrary.

PS: If you want me to provide these sources then I know you are only trolling as you know about these sources yourself and have been presented with them in numerous threads.

I am not sure what you are talking about when you claim "the Earth is a dymanic system and is trying to correct the situation, that is why it hasn't been too bad YET". And how would you characterize a tipping point?

Also, the planet does not need saving, it will do just fine with or without us...

The use of the term 'saving the planet' does not refer to the physical ball of rock we call planet earth.
The planet will continue to exist and support various forms of life, at least for the next billion or so years still, until it becomes intolerable for life as we know it when the sun starts it's giant phase.

What I was referring to is saving our current way of life. The comforts we have now. Going back to the dark ages or even stone ages does not seem appealing to me.

 

[Techne]

On the question of Taxing not being an optimal solution I can agree. But, it is a valid stick to use in getting heavy polluters to find better ways or curbing their emissions.

There are better ways than simply taxing people back into the dark ages.

I am not a climate scientist, but I have read enough and seen enough evidence from reputable climate scientists who have convinced me. I admit there is a fringe community who disagrees, but they haven't supplied convincing evidence contrary.

PS: If you want me to provide these sources then I know you are only trolling as you know about these sources yourself and have been presented with them in numerous threads.

I don't understand why you think it is trolling when someone asks you for sources that you, as a person, find particularly compelling. You appear to be a new member and I don't know much about you, hence the question about your particular sources. How will this discussion proceed if there is nothing concrete to discuss?

The use of the term 'saving the planet' does not refer to the physical ball of rock we call planet earth.
The planet will continue to exist and support various forms of life, at least for the next billion or so years still, until it becomes intolerable for life as we know it when the sun starts it's giant phase.

What I was referring to is saving our current way of life. The comforts we have now. Going back to the dark ages or even stone ages does not seem appealing to me.

Over-taxing via carbon taxes is one way to get rid of many comforts...

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

What I don't understand is why people believe that releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gasses) in to the air will do nothing. You can test this, you can get results, you can repeat the results. It is scientific.

 

[CommonSense]

I don't understand why you think it is trolling when someone asks you for sources that you, as a person, find particularly compelling. You appear to be a new member and I don't know much about you, hence the question about your particular sources. How will this discussion proceed if there is nothing concrete to discuss?

Techne, with all due respect.
You have been provided plenty of times with evidence by other members here.
The fact that you still deny those facts just indicates to me that whatever I should happen to post here will be ignored.
You don't seem to be willing to concede otherwise, and I don't want to go on and on on an internet forum debating with someone unwilling to change their minds.
For the record, I did change my mind. For a while I was skeptical about the climate change issue, until the overwhelming evidence provided as proof convinced me totally that indeed humans were causing the process to accelerate.

As with all free societies, you are welcome to your views, but I do not wish to be drawn into a potential endless round-robin exchange.

 

[Techne]

What I don't understand is why people believe that releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gasses) in to the air will do nothing. You can test this, you can get results, you can repeat the results. It is scientific.

I don't know of people who claim that "releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gasses)" will do nothing. What is being debated is the extent or magnitude and direction of the effect on climate as a whole and how it will impact human civilization.

 

[Techne]

Techne, with all due respect.
You have been provided plenty of times with evidence by other members here.
The fact that you still deny those facts just indicates to me that whatever I should happen to post here will be ignored.
You don't seem to be willing to concede otherwise, and I don't want to go on and on on an internet forum debating with someone unwilling to change their minds.
For the record, I did change my mind. For a while I was skeptical about the climate change issue, until the overwhelming evidence provided as proof convinced me totally that indeed humans were causing the process to accelerate.

As with all free societies, you are welcome to your views, but I do not wish to be drawn into a potential endless round-robin exchange.

Ok, now I am just curious which facts you think I supposedly "deny". This is a serious allegation, could you please back it up with some facts? Thanks.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

I don't know of people who claim that "releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gasses)" will do nothing. What is being debated is the extent or magnitude and direction of the effect on climate as a whole and how it will impact human civilization.

Isn't "it's bad" good enough?

 

[porchrat]

Isn't "it's bad" good enough?

Not when governments want to place a carbon tax on me, goods that I purchase or my business. Then I want something quantifiable.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Not when governments want to place a carbon tax on me, goods that I purchase or my business. Then I want something quantifiable.

I'd much rather have them do something now then leave it and in 100 years time everybody is fscked.

 

[w1z4rd]

Not when governments want to place a carbon tax on me, goods that I purchase or my business. Then I want something quantifiable.

There is plenty of quantifiable data out there. What exactly are you looking for? Scientists are pretty thorough with their empirical data which its quantifiable.

CO2 levels are quantifiable from many many different scientific institutions. So its the increase in heat. If I can find something specific that you are unsure of (other than the future), Im pretty sure there is lots of quantifiable data.

 

[killadoob]

I'd much rather have them do something now then leave it and in 100 years time everybody is fscked.

You realize with or without the tax if the the theory/lie is correct there is no reversing it. There is only money to be made. business as usual except certain people get rich. It's the biggest scam in humanities history.

If they really wanted to change the planet it would have changed and we would driving electric cars and we would not be relying on oil for practically everything.

Do you really believe that a species that can fly to the moon cannot find a technology that is clean to power our planet?

Money, it's all about money.

Drjohn everybody is already fked bud, the climate is changing and no amount of taxation is going to make the climate decide to reverse and go back to be being nice. the naive people who buy into this BS cannot see that our planet is far more complex than we can imagine, far more complex than humans burning coal destroying it, there are factors we do not even know about and we are discovering more and more but money will ensure the lies are driven into our heads and the facts are left to tinfoil sites with no credibility.

Ghoti said rapid climate change has never happened in 4 billions years, tell me HTF does he or anyone know?

Drjohn please take the time to read this page and don't be ignorant like ghoti:

http://usahitman.com/emfofar/

Sounds very similar to what we are currently experiencing if you ask me.

 

[CommonSense]

http://usahitman.com/emfofar/

snip

Killa, I would not trust a conspiracy website.
Or any doomsday pseudoscience website for that matter.

Be that as it may.

If you want to learn read this:

Debunking:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...o-a-pole-shift-wont-cause-global-superstorms/

Actual Science:
Remember too that these is ICE cores going back hundreds of thousands of years.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040611080100.htm
But I suppose you could argue that the ice cores doesn't go back far enough. Ok then, what other evidence is there?

And core shifts happen about every 200 000 to 300 000 years.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html

Note this:
The last time that Earth's poles flipped in a major reversal was about 780,000 years ago, in what scientists call the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal. The fossil record shows no drastic changes in plant or animal life. Deep ocean sediment cores from this period also indicate no changes in glacial activity, based on the amount of oxygen isotopes in the cores.

There is plenty of more out there.

Google is your friend too.

 

[killadoob]

Common sense that is my issue, unless it comes from nasa or so called trust worthy people it's the truth. Everything else is tinfoil.

Something nasa cannot hide though is this:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/cl...ifting-by-40-miles-a-year-might-signal-pole-r

Considering scientists cannot agree on what would happen how can we accept man made global warming as fact? We have so much to learn but we get stuck thinking what we know is the only truth because we don't know any better.

Think flat earth, same story we never knew any better. year by year we are learning more about the sun, magnetic fieldss and how they can and do have a big impact on planet earth.

They had to change the name because the earth was actually cooling globally. Credibility lost.

 

[_kabal_]

I am not sure which side I fall.

on one hand, it seems a bit too much of a coincidence that man is around for the increase in temparture, to have not caused it.

on the other hand, there is the whole 4billion year old planet (even if we have 600,000 years of data, that is still only 0.015% of the age of earth), and we could just be on the upwards climb of a sin wave

 

[killadoob]

I am not sure which side I fall.

on one hand, it seems a bit too much of a coincidence that man is around for the increase in temparture, to have not caused it.

on the other hand, there is the whole 4billion year old planet (even if we have 600,000 years of data, that is still only 0.015% of the age of earth), and we could just be on the upwards climb of a sin wave

Exactly my point, we have no idea whether rapid climate change is common or not because we do not have the data to back up the claim, although ghoti seems to think have 4 billion years of data backing up man made global warming.

It is just a coincidence we are around when the sun is affecting our planet more than usual or wait can't say more than usual as i have no idea what the sun did 2 billion years ago. So it could be normal.

To rule out the sun as the cause of our planet heating and cooling can be labelled as totally idiotic. Only a complete idiot would rule out the very thing giving us heat as the cause.

 

[Techne]

Speaking of ice core Commonsense, what do you make of this data?

 

[w1z4rd]

Guys, just a heads up, when killadoob says, "Ghoti says". 99.999% of the time is a blatant lie. Like every time in this thread. Dunno why he is so pathological, but I guess he feels he needs to lie to make a point.

Like this is a statement I have never said:

Ghoti said rapid climate change has never happened in 4 billions years, tell me HTF does he or anyone know?
.

I wish he had the capacity to be honest I personally wont take my science from someone who is a provable liar.