Responsibly Facing Up to Climate Change

How much longer can a hardcore ilk deny the increasingly consequential implications of climate change?

​

GRETA THUNBERG HELPLINE:

​

Some diehard ideologues persist in mindlessly blowing gas at science and anthropogenic climate change, but they are increasingly being forced to confront manifest reality, however begrudgingly.

“Listen to the scientists.”​

Despite the lunacy still being spewed by some, dire implications cannot be avoided by pretending they are not real.

“Chinese hoax!”
​

Despite an obdurate passion for ignorance, some have finally, belatedly, begrudgingly, recognized the consequences of irresponsibility.

Consider the devastating impact on the dangling appendage state that no amount of ideological fervor can assuage:

Rational folks, in even the most hidebound ideological enclaves, are finally accepting the climatological reality:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and the overwhelming preponderance
of duck experts agree that it's a duck, pretending there ain't no duck is very, very silly.


"You ain't real!"

"Are you?"

​

 

Thanks mate! Who can resist a bit of tongue in cheek humour? Especially if it is Australian.

Might have to explain it to some though

 

Unpossible. The 'climate experts' told us we would be dead by now. Seems they don't know ****.

 

How many degrees does greta have again??? How many peer reviewed articles has she written? Oh that's right none. She is simply the lefts latest attempt at a children's crusade. As if somehow putting bad ides and garbage into the heads of children somehow makes the ideas less bad.

 

A you tube is hardly science

 

To be fair, she's just as qualified to make outlandish bullshit predictions as the so-called 'experts' who are nothing but climate nutters looking to cash in.

 

A U tube that quoted 'climate experts'. Hope that helps

 

How many does Trump have?

Better yet how many do the collective scientists have who have participating in authoring the IPCC?

 

And who specifically would that be?

Are you talking about the authors of the IPCC reports?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

 

Nope! It doesn’t help because unless you have an academic citation it is NOT science!

Science does not rely on “wot sum bloke on der teevee sed”

 

None of whose predictions have happened yet.

 

Nor does it rely on a phoney baloney consensus whose hypotheses remain only hypotheses.

 

https://cbs4indy.com/2019/01/28/coldest-air-in-more-than-2-decades-sets-sights-on-indiana-midwest/
Speaks for itself The climate they are a changing....

Always and forever you can't stop it all you can do is learn to roll with the punches...

 

Guys! Climate change is real! It's not as big a threat as socialist policies, which is why I'm still voting trump even though he sucks on the evironment.
As a party we (the right) should really stop being so close minded on this issue.
Please tell me that my fellow party members are smart enough to know that when trump says "clean, beautiful coal" that it's total BS and pandering to voters in that industry.
Do we screw over all these people like the left wants to do and scrap coal and shut it all down? NO! But it's time to start planning at the very least, a long term transition to cleaner energy sources.
There is no debate here. It's proven science. Increased co2 leads to heat which leads to climate change. Embrace it! I know it's hrd to do when the same politicians and celebs that preach about the environment cruise around in private jets and leave a larger carbon foot print than all of us combined, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously. We can still have awesome non socialist/communist policies AND have a better environment!

 

Weather and climate are not the same thing, which you would know if you were not trying to cherry pick data in order to reinforce your own bias.

Because it gets cold someplace in the winter does not negate the science of climate change.

 

Define a Climate Zone without using meteorological terminology. If you can't control the weather you can't control the climate and if you think you can control the weather or the climate by micromanaging CO2, you are intellectually no different than those poor bastards in days of old that burned a goat on a rock to bribe the gods to make it rain.

 

So the greenhouse gas effect is not real?

 

Warmers love making apocalyptic predictions because of climate change. The Norwegian autist sounded batshit insane trying to do it. They routinely fail.

 

Lol, hyperbole aside, you cannot take any meteorological event such as the weather in Indiana today as any indication of climate any more than you can take a single heatwave as the same thing.

You can study global temperature patterns and frequency of occurring weather disasters in aggregate and draw conclusions from the data.

CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Here is Iain Stewart demonstrating this for you:



The idea that dumping gigatonnes into the atmosphere year after year is not going to effect CLIMATE is simply fallacious misunderstanding of how atmospheric chemistry works.

Like saying a adding a strong acid to a titration has no effect on the pH of a solution just because the change is incremental and not immediate.

 

Oh good grief. Of course the green house has affect is real however CO2 is the least potent and the second least common green house gas and at 4.2 pets per 10,000

Yeah right over the last hundred years we've raised CO2 1.2 parts per 10000 to a grand whopping total of 4.2 parts per 10000. By comparison the atmosphere is 8000 parts per 10000 nitrogen, 1900 parts oxygen and 95.8 parts other mainly water vapor which by the way is a far more potent green house gas than CO2. We've had ice ages start with CO2 levels approaching 15 parts per 10000

 

It's like that kid in India born with extra legs that they want to deify and worship. This is the same thing, the Democrats don't believe in God but will worship this little Down Syndrome kid. How can we be expected to take anything they support seriously.

 

If you have a 97% consensus, why must you compel the 3% of climate denying hold outs by force of law before you do anything that you say absolutely must be done to save the environment?
If such an overwhelming majority agrees, why don't they just do it themselves?

It's hard to believe that an overwhelming majority of people agree on the problem and the solution, yet refuse to do anything about it unless the response is compulsory? I think that it is much more likely that there are far fewer believers and far more deniers than the believers are willing to admit.

The ONLY thing that all eco-doomsayers agree on is that the solution must be compulsory.

 

If climate change is such a dire situation then why would a teenaged girl be the spokesperson? How about someone with some credibility instead of a frightened little girl?

 

We should all have Al Gore's carbon footprint.