Climate Change
Republicans still have their heads in the sand, even after a year of glaring examples of extreme weather; the EPA director says this is not the time to discuss it.
Seems like the perfect time to kick it around since you are the director of the EPA not FEMA. |
I've noticed a trend. Many of those who deny that there is climate change believe without question that a guy built a huge boat and put a pair of every species of animal on our planet on board.
Makes you wonder.... Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Yeah that was a bust, but infrastructure, hybrids, all electric, wind and solar. These technologies would have and should have been made available a decade ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
We should always be investigating the health of our planet and making changes when necessary. But not reacting to hysteria. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Nobody denies that the climate changes. What is unsettled is how much man has had an impact on it. Hurricanes, despite the hysteria are not more frequent or more powerful then they have been in the past .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Mans involvement is only disputed by those who dispute Climate change . and use the rights talking point What is unsettled is how much man has had an impact on it. Overwhelming scientific consensus says human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. The 2010 Anderegg study found that 97-98% of climate researchers publishing most actively in their field agree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. Conservatives More than one thousand scientists disagree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. In 2010 Climate Depot released a report featuring more than 1,000 scientists, several of them former UN IPCC scientists, who disagreed that humans are primarily responsible for global climate change. that says it all |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
I'm almost 65, so for me, global warming if we are accelerating it makes no difference, but for my kids and their kids; it may be worth s serious debate by all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
It's BS ! Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
We should keep studying things honestly. But until Al Gore leads by example, well, I don't buy it. The only thing he has unplugged in the last 15 years, is his treadmill. Ba dum bum pssh. "that says it all" Or it could say that that group has an agenda. 99% of card-carrying members of the Screen Actors Guild thinks Trump is worse than Darth Vader. That doesn't make it so. |
Quote:
|
this is a brilliant article....
"mostly a series of bullet points about the American Lands Council which he somehow connected to white supremacy, right wing fanaticism, and most bizarrely of all the Kim Davis controversy. I couldn’t believe that someone who was a “scientific” person felt the need to use the guilt by association trap, the screeching leftist “Racist! Sexist! Homophobe!” nonsense in a discussion about land use." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/...at-university/ not only is journalism dead....along with that...education.... what did she write?......"It’s propaganda—dogmatic as any religion." :hihi: |
Quote:
None of the science has made projections like that, at least not any of the published, peer reviewed science. You can hear what you want, but the actual scientists, for the most part are conservative in their projections. Take sea level rise, measured both using tide gauge and satellite altimeter data. Projections have been for a meter or more by 2100 for a while. Measurements made since the those projections have us on at least that track, with the high end\extreme, due to increased melting of land based ice being 9ft+. This is not a linear process and not the same everywhere due to land subsidence, uplift and even gravitational attraction of water to the ice sheets. All of this doesn't produce 'waterworld' inundation... but go walk around our coastal cities at high tide and add 3ft, 5ft of more to where the water is. Hell go to Annapolis now and see what they have dealt with already with 1 ft of rise. Al Gore was a senator, VP and made a movie. Not a scientist. He is an advocate, and yes a hypocrite. |
Quote:
One caution, Watts has frequently been found to mislead on his interpretation of others work, either by commission or via ommisson. |
Quote:
and WTF does this mean? "climate skeptic students".....they are what?...skeptical of "climate"??....good grief Bryan |
Quote:
The models are based significantly on assumptions, because there is so much we don't know at this point. We need to keep studying, to keep learning. It's far from settled. Fishing, scuba diving, hiking, and wildlife photography are my favorite hobbies. No one has a more vested interest in healthy ecosystems than me, especially since I also have 3 young kids who also deserve to inherit a healthy planet. But that doesn't mean I'm going to let people whose environmental footprint is staggering ( al gore, Clooney, DiCaprio) tell me to knock down my house and live in a yurt, while they jet around from one palatial home to another. With liberals, it's rarely about what "they" should do, it's always about what "we" should do. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
'Students who are skeptical of climate change'. One I remember well, also hosted a conservative talk radio show on campus. We had some good discussion in class, makes me step up my game. |
Quote:
How about the current Pope??? Read the science, understand the projections, make your own conclusions. As far as models... Models are based, tested and tuned using historical observations and then run forward into the future. The key thing to take away is not the exact prediction of any one model, but the consensus of the models based on past observations and current trends is that we are headed for certain outcomes; warmer temperatures and higher sea levels are two of them. This is a good explanation of models: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v9aRQpumPA Nice broad paint brush at the end there to derail a discussion. No conservative or religious figure ever preaches to live your life a certain way and does the opposite. Nope not ever. |
Bryan I work with models, I sometimes build models for the purposes of predicting insurance losses. The accuracy of any model, is very sensitive to the magnitude of the assumptions that underly the model. In the case of predicting the impacts of climate change, there is a tremendous amount of speculation behind the assumptions. We don't know if the atmosphere or the oceans have the ability to absorb, or offset, increased emissions. We have almost no idea. It's very, very speculative at this point. If you are about to flip a coin a thousand times, we know that you'll get approximately 50% heads. That is established science. You want to predict what the effect will be, of unprecedented emissions? Speculation. The third world has never been developed before, so we have very little actual empirical evidence, upon which to base our assumptions. Which means the assumptions are speculative. The last time I checked, polar bear numbers were increasing. That wasn't supposed to happen if the models were accurate.
I want to pay taxes to fund the research. But I don't like the idea of some limousine liberal, suggesting that people In developing countries don't have the same right to the cheap comforts ( heat in the winter, a/c in the summer) that the limousine liberal enjoys. There is more than a little hypocrisy in the ranks. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
A vast majority are skeptical that humans do have a significant impact. I think fisherman, who can see tangible evidence of mans impact on the oceans (overfishing, acidification) should have a stronger appreciation for mans impact on the climate system as a whole. |
Remember when we had a hole in the ozone ?? We all agreed it was due to refrigerant gasses like freon. Scientists found an option and replaced the bad stuff with safer gases and viola! Low and behold, the ozone started to healed itself.
The difference between the ozone and what's happening now is that this is related to oil. We as a planet are addicted to it. Try telling a drunk that he should stop drinking. Good luck... Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com