Global Warming My Arse

I don’t think more Americans are going to change their minds. Americans are either true believers or annoyed/bored with the narrative. Now government education is another animal. Young impressionable minds are being molded there.

Adults who don’t accept the whole narrative have been lampooned long enough and many would cheer the world burning up if it meant a reprieve from the incessant bombardment with apocalyptic “news” stories.

You noticed most of my questions/statements were rhetorical. So really I guess I lean towards more examination and observation as well. But that isn’t the narrative we hear from the true believers. My point is you can’t have it both ways. You can’t ridicule skeptics and admit there is more to learn. You can’t claim victory by consensus and continue to go down the same paths of research that are so called settled science now. People who use logic to interpret the world around them aren’t going to fall for it.

There may be no problems with the science, but there certainly is with the groupies and marketers.

I hope you aren’t serious about politicians solving the problem. BHO claimed to be the one to stop the rising sea levels but apparently failed. Political hot air likely just adds warming. Government fails at almost everything. I’m certainly not comfortable trusting a planet and it’s survival to government/politicians.

 

The title of this thread by a climate change denialist appears to present the proposition that his arse does not exist, that his arse is a hoax perpetrated by persons unknown for vast profits mysteriously derived.

I offer the alternative theory that he might just not be able to find it.

 

Fall for what, global climate change?

 

I’ve attempted to be very clear about my belief that there is a pretty good case for climate change. My problem is with the hyperbolic scaremongering used to market the science to the general public. Not to mention the hijacking of the theory by politicians to increase their power and control.

I don’t know if you’ve kept up with my posts in this thread and other climate change threads, but global warming isn’t something to fear for me. It would make me more profitable in business and make my life easier overall.

I’m not the only one. A warmer planet with higher concentrations of CO2 is certainly preferable to a cooler planet for everyone. Well, everyone who likes to eat anyway. Just the sheer egotism needed to believe the planet’s temp is perfect now or was in 1987 or whenever you pick in our lifetimes astounds me.

Again, warming caused by increasing levels of CO2 is logical. Past that, the climate change narrative is an illogical dumpster fire. Fear sells to the majority but not to me...either I’m the product of millions of years of natural selection or the creation of a benevolent God. Either way I’m confident in my ability to survive a few degrees of average global temperature increase. Aren’t you? Or does mars sound more appealing than a warmer earth covered in lush vegetation? Just kidding. Kind of.

 

You type all that and give me nothing to specifically to care about or comment on?

 

When confronted with idiocies, neither is problematic, FYI.

 

The white house explicitly authorizes the release of a small percentage of government outputs.

 

Yay, whatever.

 

We don't ignore CO2's effect. That CO2 can produce a warming of the atmosphere is indisputable. What we re skeptical about and what is unknown by the science is the differential impact. If CO2 increases from 1ppm to 2ppm is the forcing 5.35? From 100ppm to 200ppm is it still 5.35? From 350ppm to 700ppm is it still 5.35? From 1000ppm to 2000ppm is it still 5.35? From 5000ppm to 10,000ppm is it still 5.35? Ignoring the periodic changing of the 5.35 constant for the sake of discussion, the scientists and most scientists say yes. But it/they really do not know.

 

I misread my chart. I was thinking that stars moved down the main sequence line, but, of course, they do not. They are put on the MS line depending only on their initial mass, and stay more or less on that spot until they start to die.

 

This has to be the strangest post I’ve seen on PF and that’s saying something! You’ve added levity to my evening if not anything substantive on climate change, so thanks. Hope you have a great evening as well.

 

I think it's a hoax.

Spacecraft pfft!

 

"The concept of global warming was
created by and for the Chinese in order
to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive!"
​

It is not by accident that global, anthropogenic climate change deniers are, overwhelmingly, confined to one ideological ilk, restricted to one geographical region.​

Science is not amenable to either faith or faith-based apostasy. Science is self-analytical, self-critical, self-correcting, and dependent upon irrefutable evidence. There is an inherent incentive for a scientist to disprove the prevailing consensus. Where are the climatological Darwins eager to distinguish themselves by refuting the accepted wisdom?

The scholarship as well as common sensory perception are impervious to the fake, ideologically-driven attacks on science.

MYTH BUSTING: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/108576327/The-worst-climate-change-denial-myths-debunked-by-experts

 

In addition to the above ^^^^ the IPCC AR5 report is the culmination of 30,000 lines of evidence spanning nearly all disciplines of science reviewed by 3,500 experts to produce a 5,000 page summary of the science with a 120 year history.

 

Do you believe we can control the climate? Simple yes or no.

 

No.

 

Control is NOT EVEN REMOTELY synonymous with affecting (for good or ill). Stop with the cynical attempt to hint otherwise.

Do you believe we can affect the climate? Simple yes or no.

 

^^^ Exactly. Control and influence are different things.

We influence the climate because we pump a lot of greenhouse gases, aerosols, and other chemicals into the air.

But we can't control the climate because we cannot adjust all properties of it both up and down nor can we do it with any reasonable amount of speed.

For example, CO2 is very easy to put into the atmosphere, but very difficult to get out. We can turn the dial up on the temperature via our influence, but we cannot turn the dial down on the temperature so that it can be controlled.

 

Your post shows that you do not understand climate change/ "global warming".

It is about increased energy in the system. That increase in energy is able to push cold air from the arctic further south resulting in anomalies such as the one you present.

This is evidence that global warming is happening - not an argument against

 

This does not characterize the preponderance of the climate science community. Your quoted statement, "Scientific evidence for climate change is "unequivocal", according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" is diametrically opposed to your characterization. In true science there is virtually no such thing as irrefutable evidence.

 

If the deniers are wrong and we act on their wishes, our planet becomes unliveable.

if the warmers are wrong and we act on their wishes, the planet gets cleaner and our economy more efficient and advanced.

 

And the only "proofs" that exist are in math, blah blah, quit semantics, please.

 

While Dirty Donald openly spouts about his disbelief in climate change his personal business decisions show otherwise.HE IS CITING CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING as the reasons he wants to build a SEA WALL to protect against rising sea levels at his golf resort in IRELAND.But can he spell Hypocrite??

 

No, all that carbon was once wonderful organic matter and can be again. The foundations of life and abundance. Think of it as being analogous to raw materials used in the manufacture of solar panels...because that’s what it is!

So act. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain, why must you have government to force you to act?