Um, no. It's another example of how you cherry pick data. "According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade...A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age." http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... altemp.php "September 2012 witnessed two opposite records concerning sea ice. Two weeks after the Arctic Ocean's ice cap experienced an all-time summertime low for the satellite era (left), Antarctic sea ice reached a record winter maximum extent (right). But sea ice in the Arctic has melted at a much faster rate than it has expanded in the Southern Ocean, as can be seen in this image by comparing the 2012 sea ice levels" http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... altemp.php Sea ice in the Arctic is disappearing faster than it's increasing in the Antarctic. That's sea ice levels. On land it's a different story. "New Observations Confirm Greenland, Antarctica Losing Land Ice Rapidly" http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... _loss.html Another example of your sloppy debating. What review? Who discovered? Post some links. If you don't know how, at least put where you got the information. It's called the Oregon petition: "The most prominent of these was the Oregon Petition, which was organized by a chemist named Art Robinson, founder of a group called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which also markets a home-schooling kit for “parents concerned about socialism in the public schools.” The petition was supposedly signed by “31,000 American scientists” who opposed the consensus “entirely on scientific grounds published in peer reviewed journals.” But in fact, anyone could sign on, and according to Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, the list ultimately included the Spice Girls and several Star Wars characters." http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight- ... cientists/ BTW, Doctors Frank Burns and BJ Hunnycutt also signed it. The characters from MASH, not the actors who played them. The guy behind the petition also gets money from Exxon. "The chairman of a group called the Science and Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a physicist who in the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition, which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth...Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming Evidence. The lead author of the "review" that followed Seitz's letter is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a professional climate scientist. It was co-published by Robinson's organisation - the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - and an outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998." http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... lliving.g2 "French climategate ends with sceptic’s humiliation ...The book was so badly received that hundreds of scientists called on the French science minister Valerie Pecresse to disown Allegre's claims, which they said disparaged their work and contained downright lies." http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/10353 ... z3WLmfncY0 This one is laughable. Of course there's always been climate change. The problem is, we're INCREASING the rate. We're pumping billions of tons of stuff into the atmosphere that was never there before. Wrong and cherry picked, as I already pointed out. Where's your evidence that "most scientists" think that? What's your source? You throw this stuff out there like it's fact but you don't back any of it up. It's typical of the dishonest and sloppy way the deniers go about things. Junk science, cherry picked data, studies that aren't peer reviewed, outright lies and falsifications.
I have another question. What will happen if we go about making these proposed changes that need to be made to curb climate change? What impact does it have on the population? What impact does it have on the planet? Answers can be personal. I don't care what articles say. I've read them. I want it in your own words. Please.
I would still like to hear what everyone thinks would happen. That's all. Not some linked article, but actually what you personally believe will happen.
I'm not trying to trick anyone I'm just curious what you all actually think. I was in the 3rd grade when I started getting young writers awards for environmentalism. It's hard to believe now saying I all but flunked out of my English classes later in life. I didn't do it because someone wanted me too. I did it because that is what I cares about. My first story was about the ocean being sad. They use to take myself and a few other kids to the back of the cafeteria once or twice a month and ask us all kinds of questions. Basically a spill your guts thing. So I'm sympathetic. Just curious of actually thoughts, not article related debate. I really want to know what you posters believe will happen.
Well personally I think we run out of material on earth and get plunged into a semi- dark age until we figure out a way to make extracting resources on other planets plausible. There is just too many scenarios to possibly conceive of that I just try to live my life as best I can without worry - I figure at this point I can deal with whatever life throws at me!
wow its like sooo much easier to deny climate change or say it doesnt matter if we cut all the sciency stuff from the convo (giggle)
You are missing the point giggle box. I already know the info. As do most people. It's easy for you to come in and add a giggle with no real substances to your post. It's just nonsense and giggles. Is what I/we would like to know is what you personal think will happen. It's not a very hard exercise in what is otherwise looking like a controlled thread to push climate data. And since it looks that way. Maybe we should go back and look at all the political threads. Like the ones about hacking. With the new EO by the Obama administraton that could be interesting. Like I said I've been on this since I was 8 years old. Between 25-35 years. If you need this data, you haven't been pay attention.
It depends on who you ask. If you ask the fossil fuels industry, they'll say it will destroy the economy. If you ask scientists and environmentalists, they'll say it will save lives and money. The costs of doing nothing will outweigh the costs of fixing the problem. Me, I tend to go with the latter. Why? We've been here before. "An October 1990 Wall Street Journal editorial urging President Bush to veto the 1990 Clean Air Act update claimed "The Clean Air Act's unduly stringent and extremely costly provisions could seriously threaten this nation's economic expansion." Auto industry executives, in opposition to the 1990 Clean Air Act update also stated "[Further decreasing auto emissions] is not feasible or necessary and that congressional dictates to do so would be financially ruinous." In 1975, the US Chamber of Commerce criticized the passage of environmental laws by Congress, including the Clean Air and Water acts, saying "But they went ahead anyway in the spirit of political expediency to ramrod through measures that would affect millions of people and billions of dollars..." The CEO of Pennwalt, a major industrial producer of ozone-depleting CFC's, talked of "economic chaos" if CFC use was to be phased out.(1) DuPont, the largest CFC manufacturer, warned that "entire industries could fold" if ozone protection legislation was implemented.(2) Again, in January 1990, the DuPont Chemical Company testified to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that accelerating the phase-out of ozone-depleting CFCs to July 1, 1996, would cause "severe economic and social disruption." The Mobil Oil Company testified to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in October 1990 opposing cleaner gasoline standards, saying "The technology to meet these standards [regarding requirements to use a new kind of cleaner gasoline] simply does not exist today...[and we predict] major supply disruptions." The National Association of Manufacturers, in opposing regulations to cut acid rain in 1987, said "The effects [of rules to reduce acid rain] include serious long-term losses in domestic output and employment, heavy cost burdens on manufacturing industries, and a resultant gradual contraction of the entire industrial base. The irony of this bleak scenario is that these economic hardships are borne with no real assurance they would be balanced by a cleaner, healthier environment. Henry Ford II, in 1966 on regulations addressing seat belt & safety glass mandates, said "We'll have to close down." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-g ... 32090.html Every time science says we have a problem, industry and commerce does the same thing. First, they say there's no problem. Then, when it becomes obvious there really is a problem, they say it will be too expensive to fix. It will destroy the economy. Every single time, the deniers have been wrong. We fixed the problems and the economy wasn't destroyed.
See the attacks I get? I'm not a climate denier. Yeah. Okay. Thanks for the convo. Proceed on posting the way you always do.
That's literally how stupid you guys are. Sorry for the insult. You can't even recognize friends from foe.
Okay. Let "Tha Don" keep throwing you soft balls. He is the only one who is arguing. Carry on. If it makes you feel smart.
Thanks elegantly wasted for your response. One noticed you have been attack on this board for voicing your opinion in the past. I though it would be cool for the kids to tell us what they think will happen, but we have some adults with control issues. Also I want to warn you guys. The new EO, will go after people hacking Israel. As the United States as sensitive information on their networks as well. Your anti-Semitic tendencies on this kids game haven't gone unnoticed. The openness and willingness of this games population to facilitate and condone this type of activity hasn't gone unnoticed. You guys don't have state backing. You are a bunch of spoiled adults who have to have things their way. Good luck!!
@ Hydra If you're referring to me, I don't see how I attacked you. You asked me questions, I gave you answers. I side with science. They're right more than they're wrong. Industry and commerce are wrong more than they're right. Let's suppose the science is wrong. What's the worse outcome? We spent some money, invested in cleaner, renewable energy sources, and made a cleaner planet. Let's compare that to what happens if the deniers are wrong. We're in serious trouble. Coastal areas will flood. Populations will be dislocated. Storms and extreme weather will get worse. Food production will be jeopardized. Common sense tells me the smart thing to do is err on the side of caution. Fix the problem. We've only got the one planet. If we screw it up we have no place to go. When you have all your eggs in one basket, you make damn sure you take care of the basket.
Reading this is fun ___________________________________ kaw_admin | 3368 posts Sat Apr 4, 2015 1:09 pm Not very pleased with arguing in my forums
We don't care we r not insecure or intolerant. Seek your own validation maybe or at least verse yourself in another nations history.