Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Original Research, here:

They feel that they have figured out why the IPCC's figures overestimate anthropogenic global warming, as well: cloud coverage.





Kobe University corroborates most of these findings:





Regardless of their findings, they did find anthropogenic global warming is a thing. Even after discovering a huge portion of global warming can be attributed to low-cloud coverage, they still find a very minute element of anthropogenic global warming. .01% is still something.

HOWEVER!!!!!

The question should not be about all the global warming man is producing. It should be about moving our energy and industry to sustainable renewable energy sources and environmentally safe, LONG-TERM practices. We need to consider what the world will be like 50-100 years from now and do our best to leave a good planet for our progeny. We don't need to cripple human industry in self-guilt over warming that is almost completely not our fault. But not much changes on what we should be doing - we still need to user cleaner sources of energy.


Galactic Cosmic Rays? Seems like a joke.

so there is confirmed man-made climate change and it cannot be denied any further? or are we supposed to laugh at the percentage number as if we have the understanding to know that it's insignificant? what's the angle here?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so there is confirmed man-made climate change and it cannot be denied any further? or are we supposed to laugh at the percentage number as if we have the understanding to know that it's insignificant? what's the angle here?

No, you're supposed to enjoy the fact that science has done 2 things:

1. Demonstrate that anthropogenic global warming contribution is 10 times less than previously estimated and it is being overblown by special interest groups after government and private money.

2. New science and new methods confirm that anthropogenic global warming is still a thing even when adjusting for new science - no one can deny that humans have had 0 impact on global warming.

3. My thoughts (for or against) how we should still clean up our act and think much further ahead than 2-5 years.

Edit - At no point should we view human-impact on climate change as negligible, at least for now. We should still take measures to clean up our act. This research just shows that there are other factors and it greatly decreases man's culpability. Get ready for the energy companies eating this research up. Over time, that .01% compounds, exponentially, on the type of impact it has.

You're .01% man-made.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you're supposed to enjoy the fact that science has done 2 things:

1. Demonstrate that anthropogenic global warming contribution is 10 times less than previously estimated and it is being overblown by special interest groups after government and private money.

2. New science and new methods confirm that anthropogenic global warming is still a thing even when adjusting for new science - no one can deny that humans have had 0 impact on global warming.

3. My thoughts (for or against) how we should still clean up our act and think much further ahead than 2-5 years.

Edit - At no point should we view human-impact on climate change as negligible, at least for now. We should still take measures to clean up our act. This research just shows that there are other factors and it greatly decreases man's culpability. Get ready for the energy companies eating this research up. Over time, that .01% compounds, exponentially, on the type of impact it has.

Who could possibly have a political agenda? (I wish I bookmarked this blog post from a college professor who stood directly in front of an air vent of a nuclear reactor in response to protests, and some of his own students said "You shouldn't have done that", in a tone that made clear anything less then "Power plant bad" was unacceptable to their cause.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you're supposed to enjoy the fact that science has done 2 things:

1. Demonstrate that anthropogenic global warming contribution is 10 times less than previously estimated and it is being overblown by special interest groups after government and private money.

2. New science and new methods confirm that anthropogenic global warming is still a thing even when adjusting for new science - no one can deny that humans have had 0 impact on global warming.

3. My thoughts (for or against) how we should still clean up our act and think much further ahead than 2-5 years.

Edit - At no point should we view human-impact on climate change as negligible, at least for now. We should still take measures to clean up our act. This research just shows that there are other factors and it greatly decreases man's culpability. Get ready for the energy companies eating this research up. Over time, that .01% compounds, exponentially, on the type of impact it has.


Damn, I messed up #2. I bolded and italicized the correction:

Originally posted by cdtm
Who could possibly have a political agenda? (I wish I bookmarked this blog post from a college professor who stood directly in front of an air vent of a nuclear reactor in response to protests, and some of his own students said "You shouldn't have done that", in a tone that made clear anything less then "Power plant bad" was unacceptable to their cause.)

That sounds like something I'd enjoy.

I demand you find it and post it.

I don't know if it's a translation issue or something else but that reads like the most unscientific paper I have ever read. I literally wrote better papers during first year undergraduate studying.

Where was it published and who peer reviewed it?

Actually got it. Cornell U.

The people that virtue signal for climate change are phonies. I do more for the environment then every person here combined besides possibly Jaden if what he says is true. My net zero house in 3 years has offset 30 tons of co2, 2450 gallons of gas saved, 22,370lbs of coal not burned, 48 barrels of crude not refined, grown 327 trees and recycled 16,000lbs raw materials.

Well I turn the water off while I'm brushing my teeth.

They obviously didn't take BF's "Back Fires" in this study..

But are we still causing the extincting of a sh_tload of animal species?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Originally posted by BackFire
Well I turn the water off while I'm brushing my teeth.

Exactly, no offense but I assume you are a climate change believer but you probably do jack shit in real life to do your part plus you dump a ton of methane into the environment that is 100 times worse than CO2

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Exactly, no offense but I assume you are a climate change believer but you probably do jack shit in real life to do your part plus you dump a ton of methane into the environment that is 100 times worse than CO2 I live in the 3rd world mate. It's all a first world problem.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I live in the 3rd world mate. It's all a first world problem.

This might be the biggest winning argument I've seen Whirly pull out ever.

So wait, you're saying we won't be dead in 12 years?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Exactly, no offense but I assume you are a climate change believer but you probably do jack shit in real life to do your part plus you dump a ton of methane into the environment that is 100 times worse than CO2


https://media.giphy.com/media/l3vR9Won29lLxPFNC/giphy.gif

Originally posted by BackFire
You're .01% man-made.
Nah, he's about 50% man made.

Is this the Finnish study saying CC is not man-made?

Originally posted by TempAccount
Is this the Finnish study saying CC is not man-made?

No. It is 2 different studies that say man-made global warming is 10 times less than the IPCC figures show.

Originally posted by Bentley
But are we still causing the extincting of a sh_tload of animal species?

Not really. That happens in Nature all the time.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so there is confirmed man-made climate change and it cannot be denied any further? or are we supposed to laugh at the percentage number as if we have the understanding to know that it's insignificant? what's the angle here?

He is being a massive phaggot. This is a variation of "the global sea level only rises 1/8 of an inch a year," never mind that a global sea level rise of 10 inches would put the Gulf Coast underwater.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He is being a massive phaggot. This is a variation of "the global sea level only rises 1/8 of an inch a year," never mind that a global sea level rise of 10 inches would put the Gulf Coast underwater. Pretty much as the temperature continues to rise in line with the model for the carbon emission prediction. If these are lower, it just means the affect they are having is a magnitude greater.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He is being a massive phaggot. This is a variation of "the global sea level only rises 1/8 of an inch a year," never mind that a global sea level rise of 10 inches would put the Gulf Coast underwater.

Oh really?

Since 1993, sea levels rose 3 inches. It was projected to rise 4 feet.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels.html

And the rise has been adjusted down again to just 3mm a year (very tiny above what projections would have been in 1900, exiting the ice age):

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073308



This does two things:
1. Global Warming alarmists are full of shit.
2. Evidence still points to man as having an impact on global warming.

Well we are coming out of the Ice Age. That would mean that the Ice at the Polar Caps will begin to Melt so....yeah.

Of course I have already heard the argument that we (Mankind) are causing it to happen TOO FAST! Geez the Loony Left does love to change their narrative.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh really?

Since 1993, sea levels rose 3 inches. It was projected to rise 4 feet.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels.html

And the rise has been adjusted down again to just 3mm a year (very tiny above what projections would have been in 1900, exiting the ice age):

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073308



This does two things:
1. Global Warming alarmists are full of shit.
2. Evidence still points to man as having an impact on global warming. Those were extreme predictions which were revised. It was the hottest on record in Paris and London 2 weeks ago mate.

How far back do the records actually go?

130-140 years accurately tested.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh really?

Since 1993, sea levels rose 3 inches. It was projected to rise 4 feet.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels.html

And the rise has been adjusted down again to just 3mm a year (very tiny above what projections would have been in 1900, exiting the ice age):

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073308



This does two things:
1. Global Warming alarmists are full of shit.
2. Evidence still points to man as having an impact on global warming.

Global warming alarmists are full of shit but we but can all agree freshwater is scarce.

So a way to kill two birds with one stone and satisfy everyone is a massive de sal effort powered with renewable energy.

Alarmists are just POS with no solutions.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Those were extreme predictions which were revised. It was the hottest on record in Paris and London 2 weeks ago mate.

Probably what should be stated is we should have hottest days on record because we are still exiting an ice-age.

But the clarification should be: that hottest day probably should not have been experienced until 10 years from now or 50 years from now as we slowly exit the ice age. What made that hottest day happen in 2019 is likely the man-made component of global warming.

These are very large timescales. So a difference of 10-50 years is negligible but because the changes are happening much faster, relative to our human perceptions, it is pressuring us to change too quickly and hurts us, economically.

Hope all that makes sense.

In the past, the alarmists would say, "Oh no! We are doing all the warming we would normally do in 10,000 years in only 200 years because of our green house gas emissions!!!!" In reality, it's closer to a difference of 9000 vs 10000. Or even just 9500 vs 10000.

That .01% contribution is cumulative and likely exponential on the change impact.

Yes, the alarmists are full of shit. But the deniers are full of shit, as well.

Edit - I should state that I tried to avoid some of the silly, older, predictions, which is why I went with stuff after 1990 and not some of the stupid stuff from earlier. You're right, though: they have greatly softened their predictions and that should be noted.

^Pretty much.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He is being a massive phaggot. This is a variation of "the global sea level only rises 1/8 of an inch a year," never mind that a global sea level rise of 10 inches would put the Gulf Coast underwater.

People will just sell their beach homes or something.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
130-140 years accurately tested.

Too small of a sample for accurate predictions when measured against the totality of Geographic Climate History.

TRY AGAIN!

Originally posted by Robtard
People will just sell their beach homes or something.

So, did you not read the counter points people made to Adam's post?

Originally posted by Surtur
So, did you not read the counter points people made to Adam's post?


Sea levels are rising and no amount of gaslighting will change that. Some people who live in coastal areas are experiencing it first hand and then there's the data which has been collected for years and years via satellites.

New study finds sea level rise accelerating

The rate of global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

This acceleration, driven mainly by increased melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise projected by 2100 when compared to projections that assume a constant rate of sea level rise, according to lead author Steve Nerem. Nerem is a professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder, a fellow at Colorado's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), and a member of NASA's Sea Level Change team. -snip

Originally posted by Robtard
Sea levels are rising and no amount of gaslighting will change that. Some people who live in coastal areas are experiencing it first hand and then there's the data which has been collected for years and years via satellites.

New study finds sea level rise accelerating

The rate of global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

This acceleration, driven mainly by increased melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise projected by 2100 when compared to projections that assume a constant rate of sea level rise, according to lead author Steve Nerem. Nerem is a professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder, a fellow at Colorado's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), and a member of NASA's Sea Level Change team. -snip

Right but let me just cut to the chase: do you accept that this study has shown man made climate change is not nearly as bad as has been claimed? Just looking for a yes or no here.

So you now accept scientific research, cos before you didn't.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you now accept scientific research, cos before you didn't.

Your dodge is acknowledged, now perhaps answer my question.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sea levels are rising and no amount of gaslighting will change that. Some people who live in coastal areas are experiencing it first hand and then there's the data which has been collected for years and years via satellites.

New study finds sea level rise accelerating

The rate of global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

This acceleration, driven mainly by increased melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise projected by 2100 when compared to projections that assume a constant rate of sea level rise, according to lead author Steve Nerem. Nerem is a professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder, a fellow at Colorado's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), and a member of NASA's Sea Level Change team. -snip

Not to mention the Army Corps. of Engineers and the Department of Defense which have been issuing warnings about climate change for years.

So it's a simple yes or no: do you accept the findings of what DDM posted?

Originally posted by Surtur
So it's a simple yes or no: do you accept the findings of what DDM posted?

Why do you not believe our own military?

So yeah, you both accept the findings, but can't actually come out and say it. Gotcha.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Not to mention the Army Corps. of Engineers and the Department of Defense which have been issuing warnings about climate change for years.

What do those cucks know.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why do you not believe our own military?


And NASA, we can apparently trust them to build a Space Force and send people to and back from Mars, but what they say about climate change and sea levels based on years of satellite data, meh.

So why can't you answer my question?

It indicates the emission may be less than first thought, this has nothing to do with modern warming estimates. It just indicates perhaps less greenhouse gases are needed to produce the modern trends being experienced. It would also be foolish to throw away past meta data based on hundreds of studies due to two. I don't even know who funded these. Much more research is needed. What we do know is temperatures and water levels are going up, Ice caps are melting and these correlate to increased Greenhouse gases.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
It indicates the emission may be less than first thought, this has nothing to do with modern warming estimates. It just indicates perhaps less greenhouse gases are needed to produce the modern trends being experienced. It would also be foolish to throw away past meta data based on hundreds of studies due to two. I don't even know who funded these. Much more research is needed. What we do know is temperatures and water levels are going up, Ice caps are melting and these correlate to increased Greenhouse gases.

It indicates people misrepresented shit.

Aren't those people weasels?

That's how science works, you collect data; you test it, test it some more and you go with it, if new data changes the model, so be it. They're only dishonest if they knowingly misrepresented the data.

Human pollution isn't something invented either, we can see its effects in areas that suffer the worst from polluted water and air. eg Beijing China. Even if this study is correct, we still need to do something about the ever increasing pollution.

Do you accept the study DDM has put forth? This is a yes or no.

Its okay to say no bro.

I accept that the previous models may very well be wrong and are likely wrong considering how many factors are at play. But .01% seems very low considering how much pollution humanity creates, but I also don't know that even if that is correct and .01% is fact, is that seemingly small amount still enough to tip the scales to the point we f**k ourselves up the ass sans lube.

People need to keep researching and we absolutely need to reign in the vast polluters and we need to keep pushing for sensible** cleaner outlets and regulation.

**Trump scaling back the MPG standards for automobiles was a stupid move on several fronts. Dirty cars are not good, giving less incentives for alternative/cleaner drive sources is not good.

Do you accept it?

I can accept we have work to do, but also that we need to dial the the f*cking hysteria folks have over climate change. Agreed?

I'm asked if your accept the ".01%" as fact. Do you?

I'll be honest, it's hard to know what to accept as fact when people misrepresent climate shit.

I honestly don't know, but I do know people who have invoked "muh science!" when screaming about climate change can't ignore this, and are petty unintelligent fools if they do. Hope that helps.

If by "work" you mean that many of us have to give up things like air conditioning then I say f*** that shit. I live in the deep south where it gets hot and humid as f*** especially in the summer months. So, no, I'm not about to give up my air conditioning over all of this climate hysteria BS. Nor am I giving up hamburgers either so AOC can kiss my white a**.


Until these Hollywood hypocrite snobs start following their own advice and quit flying all around the country and the world on their private jets they can all kiss my a**.



"Her derp hottest summer on record! That proves we were right her derp!" No matter what the weather does or doesn't do climate alarmists will claim it is "proof" of "man-made" climate change horseshit. Weather has wildly fluctuated since God created the world. He designed a world in which the weather was constantly changing. Having the "hottest" day or summer on record doesn't prove a damn thing. Nor does the sea level being higher than it used to be. That's normal.



I remember when Al Gore said a while back that the world would end in 2016 because of climate change. Yet, we're still here. Of course climate alarmists have totally ignored him being wrong about that.


"Oh, but this time, we're right!!"... lol. Sure you are.


Despite what climate alarmists think, "climate change/global warming" is not the biggest threat to mankind. Nuclear weapons are.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'll be honest, it's hard to know what to accept as fact when people misrepresent climate shit.

I honestly don't know, but I do know people who have invoked "muh science!" when screaming about climate change can't ignore this, and are petty unintelligent fools if they do. Hope that helps. The loudest most retarded voices get heard. I don't buy the "we're gonna die tomorrow" any more than I buy "it's a Chinese hoax".

But I can't ignore the negative visible signs that pollution causes; these are intertwined to me, we keep tackling pollution, we will help the environment and if that has the positive effect of scaling back negative changes in our climate, perfect. If not, we clean up and we still end up with cleaner air, water and food. I don't want to live like people do in Beijing China or Los Angeles before regulations cleaned it up.

Originally posted by Robtard
The loudest most retarded voices get heard. I don't buy the "we're gonna die tomorrow" any more than I buy "it's a Chinese hoax".

But I can't ignore the negative visible signs that pollution causes; these are intertwined to me, we keep tackling pollution, we will help the environment and if that has the positive effect of scaling back negative changes in our climate, perfect. If not, we clean up and we still end up with cleaner air, water and food. I don't want to live like people do in Beijing China or Los Angeles before regulations cleaned it up.

Well my thing is, if there are still real problems to tackle those problems are harmed by overhyping this.

We will not fix these problems by being silly shitheads screaming about the end of the world.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well my thing is, if there are still real problems to tackle those problems are harmed by overhyping this.

We will not fix these problems by being silly shitheads screaming about the end of the world.

Over-hyping is still better than the "it's not happening at all" approach, since you're comparing.

If you had minor skin cancer, would you prefer your doctor say: "OMG, you're gonna die tomorrow if you don't start treatment today" or "You're fine, it's probably just a hoax, no need to worry at all"? Exactly, Surt.

People like Rush Limbaugh saying "God is taking care of the planet, so I'm not worried" is a complete cop-out.

Originally posted by Robtard
Over-hyping is still better than the "it's not happening at all" approach, since you're comparing.

If you had minor skin cancer, would you prefer your doctor say: "OMG, you're gonna die tomorrow if you don't start treatment today" or "You're fine, it's probably just a hoax, no need to worry at all"? Exactly, Surt.

People like Rush Limbaugh saying "God is taking care of the planet, so I'm not worried" is a complete cop-out.

Umm no, over hyping is no better than denying it. Don't try to die on this hill bro lol. But you will, won't you? I predict you will not be able to help yourself.

^ Standard Surt.

Rob you are virtue singaling because your just pointing fingers without offering hard solutions.

You are not offering any real solutions. Because the solutions are very hard.

Co2 isnt the problem its methane that is the problem.

Why dont we think about cutting down on how much beef people consume, and the amount of cows on the planet.

Population control, another hard solution.

How about we cut down on the almond production in California that takes trillions of gallons of fresh water to make?

I have more hard solutions, but the whole "Rush said" is just interst talk to keep your keyboard busy to kill time at work and make people feel bad.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Standard Surt.

Kiddo, "you're gonna die tomorrow!" is no better than "this shit is no bigge".

I can't see how an adult needs to be told this. You feeling okay?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Rob you are virtue singaling because your just pointing fingers without offering hard solutions.

This is an empty post that directly ignores what I said on the previous page. You just wanted to say something that you thought sounded thoughtful to join in the conversation, like Ivanka at the G20 summit.

SO you half quote me and then throw a zinger in at the end to be mature about things.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
SO you half quote me and then throw a zinger in at the end to be mature about things.

Kinda the same shit Jim Acosta pulled with Gorka.

Originally posted by Surtur
Kiddo, "you're gonna die tomorrow!" is no better than "this shit is no bigge".

I can't see how an adult needs to be told this. You feeling okay?

In regards to something potentially harmful, no, the former is more sensible as while it's a silly exaggeration, it still could promote a response that could lead to a beneficial solution, while the later promotes complete inaction which could lead to harm and or death.

You're trying to equalization again, aka the Standard Surt.

Originally posted by Robtard
In regards to something potentially harmful, no, the former is more sensible as while it's a silly exaggeration, it still could promote a response that could lead to a beneficial solution, while the later promotes complete inaction which could lead to harm and or death.

You're trying to equalization again, aka the Standard Surt.

Nope telling a person they're gonna die when it's not the case is no better.

Do better than your classic Rob BS.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
SO you half quote me and then throw a zinger in at the end to be mature about things.

When I quoted you, that's all you had written. You added more later.

I believe Rob, dude has never spouted bullshit so why would he start now?

Giggle.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nope telling a person they're gonna die when it's not the case is no better.

Do better than your classic Rob BS.

In the example I used, skin cancer can be fatal. Look it up.

Nope, over exaggerating is no better than doing the opposite. Did you wanna keep pushing this till a pal of yours comes and agrees with you? It's allowed

Originally posted by Robtard
When I quoted you, that's all you had written. You added more later.

Gotcha, so even though that might be true, and now that you have had the opportnuity to read it, you just focus on the orgional post which was not complete.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nope, over exaggerating is no better than doing the opposite. Did you wanna keep pushing this till a pal of yours comes and agrees with you? It's allowed Then answer the question instead of dodging. Two choices, which is it?

Originally posted by Robtard

If you had minor skin cancer, would you prefer your doctor say: "OMG, you're gonna die tomorrow if you don't start treatment today" or "You're fine, it's probably just a hoax, no need to worry at all"? Exactly, Surt.

Here, I'll even answer first so you can't dodge that way: I'd choose being told the "OMG, you're gonna die tomorrow if you don't start treatment today". Worst case, I still have cancer, best case, I get ahead of a potentially fatal cancer.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then answer the question instead of dodging. Two choices, which is it?



Here, I'll even answer first so you can't dodge that way: I'd choose being told the "OMG, you're gonna die tomorrow if you don't start treatment today". Worst case, I still have cancer, best case, I get ahead of a potentially fatal cancer.

Did you just whine about someone else dodging a question?

Lol lets explore this: have you ever dodged a question?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Rob you are virtue singaling because your just pointing fingers without offering hard solutions.

You are not offering any real solutions. Because the solutions are very hard.

Co2 isnt the problem its methane that is the problem.

Why dont we think about cutting down on how much beef people consume, and the amount of cows on the planet.

Population control, another hard solution.

How about we cut down on the almond production in California that takes trillions of gallons of fresh water to make?

I have more hard solutions, but the whole "Rush said" is just interst talk to keep your keyboard busy to kill time at work and make people feel bad.

^?

He legit cried about people dodging questions lol. It doesn't get any better than that. Pure hypocrisy.

He'll deny it, and someone will come cheerlead him over it. Just watch

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Gotcha, so even though that might be true, and now that you have had the opportnuity to read it, you just focus on the orgional post which was not complete.

You ranted about cows and almonds.

1) I don't eat a lot of beef or almonds for that matter

2) We should be using bison instead of cows, they're a somewhat more eco friendly and sustainable large animal meat source, it's not a whole lot single bison-to-cow, but when we're talking upwards of 100million cows, even half would show a positive impact

3) We should promote vegetarianism and veganism more (of which the Right is known to look down on more so than others), make people feel good about cutting down on meats and animal products, educate them on the positives

4) I eat meat, but I do consciously abstain from and choose veggie options many a time. eg I'll want a burger, but I'll get the still delicious portobello mushroom option

So what now?

Originally posted by Surtur
Did you just whine about someone else dodging a question?

Lol lets explore this: have you ever dodged a question?

I answered your question here about the ".01%". So yeah, that's another dodge because you know what I'm saying is true.

I didnt ask what you personally consumed.

Climate change is driven by industy and corporations. If we want to blame we need to blame McDonalds for they were the cataylst that brought about this beef revoltuion, a cheap mass produced hamburger that everyone wanted. But then if we blame them, we have to blame the people that eat them. Because wouldnt McDonalds only be a symptom of the problem, which is actually people.

I eat beef once a week on average, and chicken maybe twice a week.

But the industry as a whole are the problem

Just off the top of my head.

These are large conmpanies just in the US, and they have their counterparts around the world in other counties who do the same.

Food Establishments
McDonalds
Burger King
Sonic
Wendys
Etc

Food Distribtos
Tyson
Sysco Corporation
PepsiCo
Coke

Etc.

Chemical Compnaies
Dow
Monsanto
Johnson and Johnson
Sinopec
BASF

Originally posted by Robtard
I answered your question here about the ".01%". So yeah, that's another dodge because you know what I'm saying is true.

Yes or no are you saying you have never dodged a question on this forum? This should not be difficult, you either have or you haven't.

And oh a little tip: dodging a question and then answering it after being asked repeatedly doesn't somehow erase the initial dodge from existence

Ima be honest, I don't know how accurate this all is, I'm somewhat skeptical, but I've been too lazy to look into your study.

The bottom line is, I'm not really sure this is a problem that national policy could solve. You could wipe America off the face of the map and it still wouldn't put a dent in climate change. So I'm really not in favor of all the people who say we need to seriously restructure our economy.

At the end of the day I think solution to man made climate change is going to have to be an engineering solution that can actually be exported to the rest of the world, not a national policy solution that's just gonna make our economy worse while barely reducing the world's carbon emissions.

^ I agree with you DMB. This is an engineering solution, not an economy restructuring one.

I am open for fiscal policy that taxes carbon emissions, however, on industries.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Ima be honest, I don't know how accurate this all is, I'm somewhat skeptical, but I've been too lazy to look into your study.

The bottom line is, I'm not really sure this is a problem that national policy could solve. You could wipe America off the face of the map and it still wouldn't put a dent in climate change. So I'm really not in favor of all the people who say we need to seriously restructure our economy.

At the end of the day I think solution to man made climate change is going to have to be an engineering solution that can actually be exported to the rest of the world, not a national policy solution that's just gonna make our economy worse while barely reducing the world's carbon emissions.

Funny enough, India and China are far worse when it comes to negatively impacting the environment, and they have no incentives to change any time soon.

Originally posted by SquallX
Funny enough, India and China are far worse when it comes to negatively impacting the environment, and they have no incentives to change any time soon.
Yeah exactly, unless we get an engineering solution that can be exported to them and works reasonably well it's not gonna happen.

Originally posted by TempAccount
^ I agree with you DMB. This is an engineering solution, not an economy restructuring one.

I am open for fiscal policy that taxes carbon emissions, however, on industries.
I'm kinda skeptical on that. I kinda feel like that would shift the cost onto the consumer, which I don't think would be particularly good for the working class and poor people.

Liberal ideology is the core of everything that's good in politics. You're thinking of left-wing ideology.

Correct

Originally posted by BackFire
You're .01% man-made.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah exactly, unless we get an engineering solution that can be exported to them and works reasonably well it's not gonna happen.

Engineering a solution is useless when both India and China has no reason to change.

Look at the Paris accords, the US would have been forced to to pay and do everything in the accord, where as China and India wouldn't have to do shits till 2025 or some shit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Original Research, here:

They feel that they have figured out why the IPCC's figures overestimate anthropogenic global warming, as well: cloud coverage. Did anybody notice how this paper only has a whopping 6 references, and that 4 of those references were to works by the very authors of this paper, one of which was yet to be published?

Also, apparently the 5 pages within this short paper that claims to...disprove?... decades of climate study, hasn't been peer reviewed.

Originally posted by SquallX
Engineering a solution is useless when both India and China has no reason to change.

Look at the Paris accords, the US would have been forced to to pay and do everything in the accord, where as China and India wouldn't have to do shits till 2025 or some shit.



India makes sense, being a developing economy. But China?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
It indicates the emission may be less than first thought, this has nothing to do with modern warming estimates. It just indicates perhaps less greenhouse gases are needed to produce the modern trends being experienced. It would also be foolish to throw away past meta data based on hundreds of studies due to two. I don't even know who funded these. Much more research is needed. What we do know is temperatures and water levels are going up, Ice caps are melting and these correlate to increased Greenhouse gases.

No, you've misunderstood the research and findings.

They didn't say the global warming wasn't happening. They re-calibrated anthropogenic contribution because previous models forgot a huge variable that wasn't included, before, and it makes man's contribution to the undeniable global warming 10 times less.

From .1% to .01%.

The climate change numbers aren't different. We just shifted around the ratios within the already existing climate change figures with the new research.

And what this thread is about is not different than what Robtard and Adam are posting about: global warming IS happening. Water levels ARE rising. This thread isn't about that. People denying climate change are idiots. It's happening. There's mountains upon mountains of evidence from many different angles that supports this. What is in question is how much man is responsible for it. Current adjusted models with results duplication show that it is .01%, now, whereas the previous IPCC figure was .1%.

Originally posted by Robtard
I accept that the previous models may very well be wrong and are likely wrong considering how many factors are at play. But .01% seems very low considering how much pollution humanity creates, but I also don't know that even if that is correct and .01% is fact, is that seemingly small amount still enough to tip the scales to the point we f**k ourselves up the ass sans lube.

People need to keep researching and we absolutely need to reign in the vast polluters and we need to keep pushing for sensible** cleaner outlets and regulation.

**Trump scaling back the MPG standards for automobiles was a stupid move on several fronts. Dirty cars are not good, giving less incentives for alternative/cleaner drive sources is not good.

Do you accept it?

Don't confuse the .01% anthropogenic contribution to climate change with pollution. Those are two separate issues. I'd say that man's contribution to pollution is damn near close to 100%. I mean...other than swamp gas, thawing tundra gas, and volcanic eruptions, what else pollutes the environment besides dirty stinking humans?

How much of a snowball effect is present with the contributions of humans to climate change? Think of compounded interest.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you've misunderstood the research and findings.

They didn't say the global warming wasn't happening. They re-calibrated anthropogenic contribution because previous models forgot a huge variable that wasn't included, before, and it makes man's contribution to the undeniable global warming 10 times less.

From .1% to .01%.

The climate change numbers aren't different. We just shifted around the ratios within the already existing climate change figures with the new research.

And what this thread is about is not different than what Robtard and Adam are posting about: global warming IS happening. Water levels ARE rising. This thread isn't about that. People denying climate change are idiots. It's happening. There's mountains upon mountains of evidence from many different angles that supports this. What is in question is how much man is responsible for it. Current adjusted models with results duplication show that it is .01%, now, whereas the previous IPCC figure was .1%.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't confuse the .01% anthropogenic contribution to climate change with pollution. Those are two separate issues. I'd say that man's contribution to pollution is damn near close to 100%. I mean...other than swamp gas, thawing tundra gas, and volcanic eruptions, what else pollutes the environment besides dirty stinking humans?

Do you ever get tired of slapping down their arguments or do you derive a sick pleasure from it?!

Originally posted by TempAccount
How much of a snowball effect is present with the contributions of humans to climate change? Think of compounded interest.

I made this point, earlier, multiple times. It's not anywhere close to as bad as some of the morons are making it out to be, however.

But it's still happening.

Oh Dear...

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't confuse the .01% anthropogenic contribution to climate change with pollution. Those are two separate issues. I'd say that man's contribution to pollution is damn near close to 100%. I mean...other than swamp gas, thawing tundra gas, and volcanic eruptions, what else pollutes the environment besides dirty stinking humans?

Yes and I am saying with as much pollution humans create (green house gases etc) either directly or indirectly, the 0.01% seems rather low.

Originally posted by Surtur
Do you ever get tired of slapping down their arguments or do you derive a sick pleasure from it?!


^ Surt doing his thing for his Alpha <3

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Oh Dear...

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new study. In reality, there is no new published study. The claim comes from a six-page document uploaded to arXiv, a website traditionally used by scientists to make manuscripts available before publication. This means that this article has not been peer-reviewed, so there is no guarantee to its credibility. -snip

Oh dear indeed.

"Peer Viewed"

Translation.

Run Thru the Leftist PC Filter

or in other words.

The Lie Machine.

Go To Hell Robbie.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
"Peer Viewed"

Translation.

Run Thru the Leftist PC Filter

or in other words.

The Lie Machine.

Go To Hell Robbie.


"Bingo."