A very simple and easy to understand explanation of why climate change is REAL.

That is exactly what Dr. Chaim Henry Tejman recommends as well.

And finally Graphene screens can make it possible for deserts to blossom like a rose at
a much lower cost than a few years ago.

 

Show me the math.

If this is a solution (or even a step in the right direction) there surely must be something to cite that actually includes the math.

 

You are confusing weather with climate.

And, no, earth is warming.

 

Show me the math.

I'm fine with planting trees. I've planted 24 so far this year on property I own.

But, YOU are suggesting this is some sort of solution (or partial solution?), and for THAT to be a legit claim, you need to show the math.

And, take back that stupid comment about demanding that you put a battery car into your life. You can buy any car you like. There are numerous types and sizes.

 

Nope. Maybe yes provided it lasts. Warming is good

 

Warming is good?

So rising seal levels is good. Because you get that with warming.
New diseases is good? Because you get that with warming

You really going with that?

 

Our military doesn't agree with you.

And, they shouldn't. The agricultural change due to climate change is a national security issue, as it easily lead to failed states.

Russia is applying to the UN to claim new regions of the arctic as part of Russia due to impacts of warming.

India is building more wall against Bangladesh, where agricultural upset is causing people to need to move in order to find food.

The Marshall Islands are disappearing, leaving those living there with no place to go.

Syria had huge numbers of farmers move into the cities in hopes of finding food due to their multi-year drought, and the government had no response other than the resort to military action against its own people - thus we get the issue of the wars there, the refugee problem, the growth of terrorism, etc.

The list goes on and on. Warming will have some local benefits for some, but overall, warming is a serious national security problem.

 

Interesting approach. Your prescription seems to be, "any doubt is sufficient" to subjugate the world? Laughable. Truly. And again, it fulfills the basic tenants of faith. The argument goes something like this: "can you prove it"? Proof, no, we don't need proof, we just need emotional agreement, and once that transcends into emotional commitment, you get faith.".

So, certainly the emotional agreement is all, for you, that is necessary. It's irrational, it's deleterious to most of human endeavor, but thankfully, you feel good about it. Awesome for you. Which is why it's so generally dismissed by the rest of society. And because we understand that it's simply about your emotions the rest of us can be "supportive" and still be dismissive.

 

You're just having a problem understanding how public policy decisions get made and how science works.

NO decision is being made based on "proof". Not TARP, not interest rates, not taxation, not immigration policy, not FEMA, not NASA, not DoD, ... NOTHING.

What we need to come to agreement on is how to include science as a contribution to public policy decision making.

And, we KNOW the answer to that doesn't depend on proof, since:
- science doesn't offer proof
- public policy decision making NEVER relies on proof

Anyone demanding proof just doesn't understand either of those.

Most likely, such people aren't just ignorant - it's more probable that they want a "no" answer and don't want to have to justify that answer.

 

Correct.

Correct again.

3 for 3.

Four in a row!

Combo Breaker

This is something all of the climate change proponents fail to understand. The "deniers" don't question the stuff you list. What they question is whether or not the Earth is warming/cooling outside of natural patterns, and, whether or not the greenhouse gas emitted by humanity has a significant effect on said climate change, which, as of yet, I've still yet to see anyone prove conclusively.

Once the evidence has been submitted, reviewed, and the majority of the science field agrees to THAT point, then I'll come to a conclusion one way or another. Until then, I'm going to refrain from making any judgement based on opinion data. Though I suppose to the left that's as clear as me screaming "nuh uh, climate change isn't real."

 

Such a raw nerve to hit...

 

I am not persuaded.

 

It's sad that you live in such fear.

 

I applaud you planting trees. Don't you think you did your part to control climate?
Men you don't know got you to do that.
Welcome to your future where more men are planning your future for you.

If you want politicians deciding your life, you're well conditioned.

 

Exactly Dennis. They won't admit there are many benefits.

 

It is pure politics.

 

I have to disagree sir.

Belief and acceptance with minimal proof and mostly anecdotal claims aren't necessarily politics, it's religion. The irony of the left accepting the religion of climate change is staggering given how much they rail against the evangelical right for imposing Christian morality on the west.

 

It's sad that you're so delusional or dishonest

 

Well, your last request there, the one for agreement among scientists, has already happened.

So, you are somewhat vulnerable to the claim of a "nuh uh" answer.

 

I accept your resignation on this topic.

 

What would persuade you?

 

I don't see any evidence that I did "my part" by simply planting some trees.

We need to take some very real steps in reducing atmospheric carbon on the scale of the world as a whole.

That will take work to gain the cooperation of others both in the US and abroad to implement solutions that science evaluates as being meaningful.

Obviously, that has not happened.

 

You're deluding yourself. No resignation implied. Just observing how bitter, how disgruntled, and knowing the cause....

 

You're abandoning the discussion and moving on to guesses about "feelings".

That IS a total resignation.

 

I wanted you to get full credit.
If you don't want credit, fine with me.
I don't like your idea.