|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Let's do the simple math of how much carbon dioxide we put in the air through the use of fossil fuels and the rise in atmospheric CO2.
quote: We are putting way more than enough CO2 into the air to account for the increase.It's a matter of just doing the math.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
marc9000 writes: Who pays them? Most grants are from the government, such as the National Science Foundation, EPA, NOAA, and so forth. These agencies are interested in knowing what the climate is doing, be it warming or cooling. They have no financial or political interest in the answer, only the accuracy of the answer.
There's a difference between "attacking" and questioning. There is a difference between questioning and cover ups.
Because it's a politically charged subject. No, it isn't. It is a factual subject. The direction the climate is taking and what is causing it are questions of science and fact, not politics.
It's only pushed by ONE political party in the U.S. If that party didn't politically charge it, the way it's discussed would be totally different. If the other political party didn't try to cover up and ignore the facts then it wouldn't be politically charged. Since when did following the evidence become a partisan issue? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
marc9000 writes: And then we can do the history. We can look at past governments that increased their own power and money because they thought their people were too free. And then see how much better that society became. People in Denmark and Sweden seem pretty happy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
marc9000 writes: It depends on how "pollution" is determined. It shouldn't be imaginary pollution, the kind that can be pushed by a faction for political gain. The greenhouse effect isn't made up. It's been a part of science for 150 years. Svante Arrhenius did the first calculations for the impact of carbon dioxide on global temps clear back in the 1890's. This is driven by science, not political gain.
Yet when looking at countless websites advocating the government banning of wood burning stoves, I never see any of them trying to distinguish between cutting and burning live, green wood versus burning dead wood. It almost seems like there's more interest in BANNING, than there is in any concern for the actual science. Wood burning bans in my area kick in based on air quality, especially during winter inversions. I think you are getting your wires crossed. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
marc9000 writes: I have a problem with the ABRUPT extension into politics, which says that an increase in the size and scope of government can fix it. That's a flat out lie. You are trying to spread doubt about the existence of human caused climate change.
That people are, and have been TOO FREE. That total socialism / communism can perfectly reverse it. People in the deeply socialist countries of Denmark and Sweden are some of the freest people on the planet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Chiroptera writes: The problem is that contemporary US conservatives are now so driven by emotion and so committed to thinking that policy can be based on hope and belief rather than reality that I doubt they can recognize this is a fallacy. This is personified by their leader who decides that something is the greatest, finest, most everist . . . all based on just his emotions at the time, facts be damned. Why is global warming a Chinese hoax? Because Trump feels like it is, facts be damned. It almost makes you wonder how far conservatives would go. We should start making a big deal of how liberals believe the Earth is round. I wouldn't be stunned if flat earthism became a plank in the Republican platform followed by conservative posters on interweb forums proclaiming that round earthism is just a liberal conspiracy meant to take their guns away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
marc9000 writes: They don't have a financial interest in receiving those grants? You receive grants based on the quality of your science.
Yes, the direction it's taking and what is causing it are science and fact. But that's only a very small part of the discussion, the biggest part of the discussion is the uneven placing of the blame on only some humans, and what a few humans in government can do about it. That's flat out false. You are pushing propaganda that tries to argue it isn't happening at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
marc9000 writes: But some people today demand political action against a neighbor or company that's "polluting", but they have to do more than cite science and calculations - they need to show evidence of pollution that is specifically provable as measured by the five human senses. If they can't, then there are political problems. You and conservatives are trying to cast false doubt on the science and calculations. THAT'S THE PROBLEM!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
marc9000 writes: There's your flat out lie. Sweden isn't socialist. Great. Then let's take those Swedish policies and enact them in the US. Narry a conservative should have a problem with it since they aren't socialist policies, right? That would include such things as government funded universal health care. Not socialist, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
marc9000 writes: Questioning the placing of blame, and what humans can do to control the weather and ocean levels, is different than claiming something isn't happening. You just did it again. Humans are to blame. PERIOD!!! Can you admit that global climate change is due to human activity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
marc9000 writes: I think a better idea would be to let those who love Swedish policies to move there, and leave the U.S. system like it is. You've said that Swedish people are happy, but there are a lot of happy people in the U.S. too. Seniors in the US are happy because they have Medicare which is universal government funded health care. Why are you against the idea of letting people under 65 use the same system?
No, not if they aren't constitutional. Can you point to anywhere in the US Constitution where it says that people under 65 can not get Medicare? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
marc9000 writes: Yes I can. The human population has gone from 1 billion to almost 8 billion in just a little over 200 years. So even though it's a scientific fact that the global climate has been changing since the earth has been in existence, I'm willing to agree that maybe that drastic of an increase could have something to do with the current change that the scientific community has managed to dig up. Can you admit that it isn't the number of people but the amount of fossil fuels we are burning?
But I'm not willing to approve the extermination of 7 billion people, I'm not ready to approve people starving to death and freezing to death to appease a scientific community and all their followers that they've managed to frighten into hysteria. No one is asking you to.
And I'm not willing to allow them to make ANY CHANGES AT ALL to the current way of life in the U.S. without following traditional political procedures, or meddling with traditional unalienable rights. Again, no one is asking you to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
marc9000 writes: Because I'm 65, and I know that Medicare isn't free. I've paid into it for 47 years. Is private health insurance free?
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of healthcare, the money of their constituents. It's right here: Article I, Section 8: 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Just because the Constitution doesn't mention something doesn't mean it's fair game. It does mention that Congress has the power to collect taxes and spend that money through the legislative process. That would cover universal federally funded healthcare.
The cry of the left is that healthcare is a human right. Since healthcare is a product of human labor, then that means that SOME humans (the ones who not only have to provide their own healthcare, but also healthcare for others) are BORN INTO BONDAGE. That's not who we are. Yes, and public schools are bondage because kids have the right to attend school. THE HORROR!!!111!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
marc9000 writes: But it needs money to operate, and it's going to study those things that those who fund it WANT it to study, and if there's no money in studying other things, they won't get study. Those who fund it want a return on their investment, and often get it with an increase in the size and scope of government. So is there a global cabal of scientists faking spectra that show carbon dioxide absorbing infrared radiation? Are they also faking the measured 30% increase in carbon dioxide that has occurred over the last 100 years? Perhaps they went back in time to 1896 and convinced Svante Arrhenius to fake his calculations of the relationship between global temp increases and carbon dioxide levels: Page not found | San Diego State University AAPG Student Chapter
And also equally informed by human history, past examples of corruption, and the tendencies that factions can have for starting with a conclusion, then working backwards, upside down, however they have to work to arrive at the desired conclusion. They started with the fact that the greenhouse effect is real, and carbon dioxide is a real greenhouse gas. If you want to claim that the scientists are wrong then you need to show why the greenhouse effect doesn't exist.
And they are for the most part. Climate change alarmism is saturated throughout one political party, and practically non-existent in the other. Enough people suspect that climate change is little more than a power grab, and U.S. politics reflect it. In the rest of the world all political parties accept the reality of global climate change. The US is rare in world politics. We just happen to have one political party who shuns science.
If the scientific community feels that politicians aren't making the right political decisions, even though they're told that the decisions they want could be devastating to economics, a subject they know nothing about, shouldn't they be honest that they don't know everything? They do know that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will trap more heat. Why do you ignore their expertise in this area?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
marc9000 writes: One example, it's seldom mentioned that the world population has multiplied by 4 in the past 100 years. Or that today's non essential uses of fossil fuels, like pleasure boats, have skyrocketed in only the past 50 years, and were practically non existent 100 years ago. I just did a quick Google search on "non essential fossil fuel uses". Didn't see anything that broke down the percentages of fossil fuel use for essential uses versus non essential uses. That's a big red flag for politics. You need to share what you are smoking. What makes you think recreational boating is a significant source for increases in atmospheric CO2? A quick google shows that there are 12 million boats registered in the US compared to 270+ million cars. Already, boats are 5% of that of cars. I highly, highly doubt that most boat owners are burning more fuel in their boats than they are there cars on an annual basis. At most, I would say that carbon from boats is 1% of what cars produce. Cars account for 28% of all carbon released, so that would put boats at 0.28%. Do you really think boats are the problem here?
That's because, with few exceptions, the rest of the world points to the U.S. and says "It's all your fault - you fix it!" That's complete bullshit. Many countries are actively reducing their carbon emissions. All they are asking is that the world's second largest producer of carbon emissions join with them. You are concerned that people aren't focusing on boats which release less than 0.3% of total carbon, and yet you think the US should get a complete pass even though the US is responsible for 15% of total carbon emissions worldwide. Think about it.
I ignore the doom and gloom predictions of what it will cause by power seeking governments. Dunning-Kruger in overdrive.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024