I don't think anybody is lying. Or if some are there are few and probably not just on one side and I don't know how you would know unless you spent half your life comparing all the information that's out there.
The thing is there are lots of objections to the climate change position and I don't see any reason for that except that there ARE lots of reasons to object to it. I can't call all these people liars. Maybe you all can but I can't. I have to conclude that there are reasonable objections to it.
As I've mentioned, it bothers me a great deal that those who oppose the movement are called all the familiar PC names which is the usual Leftist political technique as it were of character assassination: "you don't care about our children or about the future of the planet. You just want to get yours and screw everybody else. It's all about the bottom line, it's about greed and selfishness." And so on.
When the argument leaves the issues and goes for personal attack there's something fishy going on. It's like you don't care about the science really, you don't really care about persuading people, you want to scare them or insult them into acting according to your point of view. MAYBE -- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- that isn't what you intend to do, you simply get carried away with your genuine belief in your position. But then you need to notice that there's something wrong with this basic attitude, and, do note, it IS Leftist, it IS political, it's NOT just scientific discourse by any means.
And I'll note again too: How come all this panic only comes up when the topic comes up. If you really believe in your own position why wouldn't you be spending every minute of your time dealing with it, maybe not in arguments at EvC but doing your best to get people to listen one way or another. I mean if it's really all that urgent you aren't acting as if it's all that urgent, as I already mentioned earlier.
Be that as it may I still plan to finish the Gore movie and follow up on the references given here.
quote:The most vivid comparison the authors draw between our current climate crisis and the perturbations of the past involves Chicxulub the 6.2-mile-wide (10 kilometers) asteroid that crashed into the Gulf of Mexico 66 million years ago, leading to the extinction of 75% of life on Earth, including all the non-avian dinosaurs.
As the asteroid plowed into Earth with billions of times the energy of an atomic bomb, shock waves from the blast triggered earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and wildfires, possibly ejecting as much as 1,400 gigatons (that's 1,400 billion tons) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the researchers explained. The greenhouse effect that resulted from these sudden emissions, according to the researchers, may have warmed the planet and acidified the oceans for hundreds of years to come, contributing to the mass die-off of plants and animals known as the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction.
Still, even the highest estimated Chicxulub-related CO2 emissions are less than the cumulative, ongoing emissions associated with man-made climate change. Those emissions, the researchers wrote, amount to about 2,000 gigatons of CO2 pumped into the sky since the year 1750. It almost goes without saying at this point that, due to a failure to take meaningful global climate action, man-made emissions are still increasing every year.
It's likely, the researchers wrote, that the results of this era of man-made meddling could look similar to the troubled centuries following Chicxulub and other ancient cataclysms. This era, the researchers concluded, "is likely to leave its legacy as a mass extinction from greenhouse-induced climate change on a biosphere already at a tipping point caused by habitat loss."
The fall of the dinoserians gave rise to us mammals. Who will rise up after us? I would like to see the cephalopods take over. Maybe in 60+ million years there will be an octopus-descendant astronaut landing on the moon.
There are legitimate concerns about the SCIENCE according to many on my side
...
Their "concerns" about the science are based on their own selfishness, greed and power. Evil. The house is on fire and they question whether the flickering is actually flames or just swampgas reflecting moonlight off of Venus. Evil.
Found this NPR interview with a guy who used to be a fervent activist for doing something about climate change and then saw that there were areas of information that hadn't been explored and changed his view. He doesn't deny that there is global warming but says he thinks the problem isn't as urgent as he had thought before.
Asked what he thinks of the activists now he referred to something called "noble cause corruption" in which people get carried away with such an issue while failing to explore all the possible causes of it (this starts at`1:14. He goes on to say he thinks local "heat sinks" caused by increasing urbanization could be the real source of some of the warming attributed to CO2.
I listened through the whole thing and I like this guy's point of view. He thinks there's no need for the scare tactics, that there is global warming and that we should be making reasonable changes to cut down on the causes but that it is not the urgent thing that is bringing about panicky recommendations that would only destroy the economy.
quote:I listened through the whole thing and I like this guy's point of view. He thinks there's no need for the scare tactics, that there is global warming and that we should be making reasonable changes to cut down on the causes but that it is not the urgent thing that is bringing about panicky recommendations that would only destroy the economy.
Keep in mind that the global-warming "alarmists" rarely talk about WHAT MIGHT BE the real cataclysmic problem with the record amounts of carbon dioxide: acidic oceans.
The global warming skeptics, in turn, almost never cover the issue.
The acidic ocean issue wasn't discussed (as it was essentially unknown) at all 3 decades ago.
(The first time I brought it up, here at EvC, RAZD was the only one to respond to my post. He seemed to think I was talking about "acid rain", which is an unrelated issue. Personal conversations often have caused the same confusion. RAZD later made a post which showed his awareness to the relatively newly discovered problem)
There was just a post, with a Live Science link (which in turn linked to a journal publication), discussing the fact that acidic oceans might have played a major part in past extinctions (like the on 65-66 million years ago). The extinctions could have been part of a chain reaction that really started with the extinction of most sea life.
Well if we're going all wackado about this, I can do my part I'm sure.
I don't believe in any of that geological time scale stuff, so no time periods, no supposed extinction events. Chikxulub is the cause of the iridium layer, is that right? That means it landed in the flood waters just as the Cretaceous sediments were laid down so that the iridium scattered on top of them. Since the Flood changed the atmosphere in some drastic ways I'm not sure anyone really understands, and the eartnj was cpvered in water at the time of the meteor's hit, the greenhouse gas effect may not have occurred. All the gases may have just shot out into space since there was no atmospheric layer to stop them.
Or something like that. The whole discussion we've been having has brought upnew possibilities for the Flood scenario. If there is no greenhouse layer to trap heat the earth cools off dramatically, right? I've figured that somehow the ice age, one ice age, began as a result of the Flood, but exactly how hasn't been very clear. But the lack of a layer of greenhouse gases could explain it. Maybe a layer got formed but not a very tight one or something like that. As it was thickened over the ensuing centuries the earth has gradually heated up and the ice gradually receded until now glaciers have disappeared that were there in our lifetime. I'm not saying there is no human input to this, that it has probably speeded up this natural process but that it's mostly natural.
Please note that I'm talking about an ideology, not about people. Nothing to do with individual sin, all about ideas that can destroy a nation. Marxism contradicts the very essence of what America was founded to be.
That solar gain enters walls, sidewalks and parking lots just as well as open fields, lakes and deserts? That this solar gain is reflected back into the atmosphere as infrared light (heat) to be retained or not depending upon the level of greenhouse gasses? That the problem of overpopulation and over building, paving over paradise to put up a parking lot is , somehow, *NOT* a part of our global warming problem?
He wrote one of the books on that Amazon page by the way, which is why I was interested in hearing what he had to say.
I think his point was that we are measuring temporary or local heat sources rather than the actual global warming heat when we measure from urban areas that put out all that reflected heat.
Maybe he thinks that's a place to focus efforts to reduce the warming but that would be in his book if so, it didn't get into the interview.
B'leve the Ten Commandments were considered by the Founders to be foundational to their efforts.
Adams said the government they made was for "a religious and moral people," that it was "wholly inadequate" for any other. By now it seems we've completely transcended its adequacy.
™ Version 4.2
(1)