Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have significantly increased since 1900. Since 1970, CO2 emissions have increased by about 90%, with emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributing about 78% of the total greenhouse gas emissions increase from 1970 to 2011. Agriculture, deforestation, and other land-use changes have been the second-largest contributors. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data Your top 3 suggestions for those in power in the industries reliant on fossil fuels? They know the truth, they are just scared of losing money and prestige.
[Educational Post] No, actually there is zero proof of that giving up economic gains will do a single thing for the climate, and there is no proof that man's efforts can even change the climate. Your side has been making these now-or-never exaggerated claims for decades. Has climate change huckster Al Gore's 20 foot sea level rise prediction come true? Nope. Have winter snowfalls become a "rare and exciting event", as Dr David Viner so famously predicted in 2000? Nope. Are polar bears extinct? Nope. Do fish swim in the streets of Miami as Al Gore and Barry Soetoro claimed? Obviously not. How many years of failed predictions must we endure before we dismiss this entire movement as being fraudulent? So tell me, young man, why should we believe you now? GOOD DAY
who to believe Al Gore or the 2-bit second-rate cult-follower/parrot, Traitor George ? what an easy choice !
Science has no side, no one cares about making this a left vs right issue. Science has shown the short and long term effects that economic over consumption do not only to the environment but to human beings. When your house has a mold rot, the effects are not immediate but over time you run into more and more issues before the whole house is destroyed. Same with cancer and the human system. Do you need death before you make a change, when in reality it's too late? Your logic is non existent and laughable. Have you ever smelt what comes out of the exhaust of a car - do you need to stick your nose in front of it until you're dead to tell you it's bad? Any grown adult knows the answer to this, but you'll keep stalling and using deflectionary tactics to protect your salary and your industry. Don't be afraid to live a life of mental strength.
[Educational Post] So after 3 decades of hysterical life-is-ending predictions that were false... and countless IPCC modeling and predictions that were woefully inaccurate... you are telling me to trust the science. The same science that was dead wrong on all these predictions -- that science? Any responsible decision maker, whether in public or private life, knows that you need to weigh more than science to make a decision. Economics has a huge bearing as well. For instance, science tells you that you need to wash your hands to be clean. But if washing your hands costs $1,000 per wash, then you are going to wash your hands far less, if ever. That's what is called a cost-benefit analysis. It incorporates both science and economics into the decision. Your logic fails in that you do not incorporate economics into your thinking. The entire approach to debating the global warming issue has been a total flop because it has focused on flawed scientific predictions and name-calling (calling the opposition 'deniers'). Face facts, that argument has failed to persuade Americans that global warming is worth foregoing lifestyle benefits and dedicating dollars towards. Again, where your logic falls short, and what you are failing to grasp, is that science is one step in a decision making process. Your science has been inaccurate, and you haven't even considered the economic argument. As such, your side has lost the debate, and you personally have lost this debate to me. GOOD DAY
science has also shown that **** gets really hot and really cold all the damn time. science has also shown that it gives two ***** about humans or any species. so i ask you, science has proved **** is warming fast and also proven it don't give a **** about "us" so what the problem is?
Why are you using an article from 1997? Wouldn't you rather just admit you're in the wrong? All he does is quote philosophers and throw out conjectures, this is a terrible article and it only strengthens my case. Not just the fact resources are limited, but the neglect of addressing the damage turning those raw resources into usable goods like plastic. Animals in the ecosystem are linked to each other, such as bee's and worm's ensuring human survival through what they do to plants, the soil and how that not only impacts the health of the food we eat, but carbon offsetting. https://www.elitedaily.com/news/world/humans-need-bees-to-survive/755737
I'd like to see the scientific report that said the world would end by 2018. You can't, because you made it up. We have been warned for the past 3 decades and the increasing rates of local and catastrophic events have not only proven the warnings were accurate but subtle hints like coral reefs dying out from high temperatures show it is not a local issue. What China does effects everyone and it happens gradually like any disease. Maybe the Arctic glaciers receding is part of a cyclical trend that happens every once in a while on the Earth, but every month we have a new scientific report linking quality of life decreasing due to global temperatures rising, carbon being the greatest contributor, yet sleazy lawyer's and fossil fuel industrialists keep trying to run around in circles and buy time. I understand that's what your salary asks you to do, but you cannot run forever. Your robotic answers show you have chosen a party line and are too afraid to leave it, things have gotten worse gradually as predicted, yet the party line given to you by your superiors is if we are still living and breathing, we are fine. If you want to deny evolution to appease the people you aim to manipulate, that's fine. But denying the severe impact of carbon hurts me, you and your children ... global industry based on consumption cannot be allowed free reign based on never ending demand.
Become energy companies instead of oil companies. Instead of fighting new energy, become the leaders in it. Buy a solar company, a wind company and make it part of your portfolio. Invest in technology on reducing CO2 and sell it to governments that want to reduce it. Invest in developing nuclear power plants and using their powerful lobbies to get them build. Work with gov'ts to create fusion reactor designs but own the patents to it. They have the means to evolve and make money in other ways instead they are protective and fight against the inevitable for a few more bucks. There's more money in green technologies as green will ultimately rule the day.
[Self Actualization Post] Actually the global models have highly predictive which has increased confidence in the models, not the other way around. Any responsible adult knows when it's time to drop the BS and finally admit to the truth and the reality that is hitting them in the face with a 2x4. The fact that you continue means one of two things A) You are very stupid and drink up the stupid koolaid that poured in front of you. B) You are a Mexican Industrialist with a heavy stake in the oil industry and therefore are posting with your pocket book because you don't give a damn if 99% of humanity dies so long as you make more money.
A bifurcated strawman, very nice. Have you considered the possibility that some of us have read and understand the science and find the proof lacking? In other words, we are not trolls, we are not stupid, and we do not hate the planet. Have you considered... That to get government funding for any research project in the last 20 years it was higly advantageous to work global warming into your thesis and almost a death knell if you said something contrary to the orthodoxy? That almost all of the data you have seen in those charts is not the raw data and is the product of adjustments that cool the past and warm the present? That websites that seem to have a unanimous group of people who comment about man's role in global warming are censored or ban discussion that is contrary to the accepted truth? Try it yourself and see. You and your viewpoint are welcome to join the discussion at Www.wattsupwiththat.com . Hundreds of people discuss alternate fuels, batteries, science, the annual ice minimum in the arctic, and many other things. You will not be censored or censured as long as you remain civil.
this caught my eye https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/14/nature-unbound-x-the-next-glaciation/ tl;dr excerpt: 6) In the absence of sufficient anthropogenic forcing, glacial inception might take place in 1500-2500 years as determined by orbital parameters, average interglacial length, Neoglaciation length, and solar variability periodicities. 7) The long interglacial hypothesis rests on the wrong astronomical parameter, high equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2, and uncertain model predictions of very long-term CO2decay rates. The virtual certainty by the IPCC that a glaciation is not possible for the next 50 Kyr if CO2levels remain above 300 ppm is unsupported by evidence. @Buck Turgidson I have no opinion on this
You sure you don’t have an opinion? 6) might with a huge qualifier.... typical of her being the ‘we don’t know anything for sure and thus we should do nothing and wait and see’. Or, let’s gamble. 7) virtual certainty is not certainty... there is no 100% in modeling but there are pretty strong estimate... this is what you call ... a straw man I certainly think it’s foolish to wait 1500+ years to see if that would happen
Sierra Club complaining (I paraphrase ) that Democrats are losing interest in climate change. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/democratic-party-has-climate-change-problem
