Originally posted by Beniboybling
Wow, look how far you've managed to move away from your point, if you've nothing relevant left to add could you nurse your bruised ego elsewhere? Thanks. 🙂
Lol even Wally West would be impressed by your dodging skills.
You more or less pull the same tactic whenever someone makes you look foolish.
Originally posted by Surtur
No credible scientists feel man made climate change isn't a thing?
Nay, I'm sure there are plenty. Just like there are plenty of "credible scientists" who believe the universe is only 6000 years old, that the earth is flat, and that evolution is a hoax.
If there is 100% irrefutable evidence out there and it's being ignored, yeah I'd agree money is a factor.
100% irrefutable evidence is rarely a thing in modern science. Generally what's universally accepted is what the experts agree is most likely to be the case based on the evidence, and that's probably not the wrong way to go about things.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Yes it's a question, and I'm asking you to prove it, so get to it.
I have noticed this shift at personal capacity in a span of few years, where I live. Winter season used to start during the month of September (each year) here. However, delays are occurring now. In 2015, Winter season started during the month of October here. And further delay in 2016. I have also noticed a decline in the periods of colder climatic conditions here; hotter climatic conditions are lasting longer now. Not just me but scores of people (here) have noticed the aforementioned shifts and acknowledge them in discussions.
I am not sure what changes you might be noticing where you live but you are welcome to share them.
1. So what is actually happening? Earth's axis is shifting a bit.
2. Why Earth's axis is shifting? Polar ice caps are melting and influencing Earth's axis accordingly.
3. So what is causing the polar ice caps to melt? Global warming.
Now, fossil fuel industry is the leading cause of the current phase of global warming! Right?
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Uh-huh, global temperature records have been broken for third year running now and continue to align with predictive models. You'll also find that we've been seeing the impact first hand for sometime. For example in this year alone there's been crippling drought in California, unprecedented wildfires in Tenessesse, as well as intensified hurricanes, cyclones etc. around the world, all of which there is strong evidence to suggest has been aggravated by climate change, and just last month, a rift in one of Antartica's largest ice shelfs just got 18km bigger.And yes, you'll find plenty of models that predict critical impacts on our planet should the global temperature continue to rise, models based on peer-reviewed research, not opinions. Here's a fun one:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/global-icons-at-risk-from-sea-level-rise-pictures-19633
This isn't the time to be taking a wait and see approach. And the idea that we lack sufficient data to make predictions about the future is fiction. Not that any lack of clarity in that regard is cause for relaxing climate change policy, rather the opposite, you don't confront the unknown with a blase faire attitude. But I'm sure taking a dip in downtown New York will be great fun, yeah, no cause for concern.
That would be to curb CO2 emissions as much as is reasonably possible, with binding, enforceable methods mind you, making further research into climate change a priority and making real efforts to invest in eco-friendly power solutions.
Yes, we should do something about this matter. However, my argument is that measures should be pragmatic and calculative. Laying a siege to country-wide fossil fuel extractions (like the idiots Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton suggested) is not going to address this matter and neither this policy is economically feasible for the U.S and other countries. A solid reason is that high concentrations of CO2 emissions will remain in the air for a long time (thousands of years) even if the entire world literally freezes fossil fuel extractions this instant; in other words, global warming process will continue (and is irreversible) no matter what we do now.
So best course of action is to force the fossil fuel industry to turn green but this shift will take time as well. Even Donald Trump is endorsing the "clean coal" industrial initiative. But the grim reality is that all efforts to make American coal mining activity greener have utterly failed so far due to a combination of factors such as emergence of relatively greener substitute in shale revolution and unsuitable policies of Obama administration. The state should have cooperated with the coal mining industry to turn green instead of shutting it down. End-result is loss of a number of corporations, increase in unemployment and greater strain on the already struggling economy.
Since Barack Obama's tenure as POTUS is coming to an end and he is going to live a good life in his new home in Washington DC (filled with mouthwatering luxuries), the incoming Trump administration is left with no choice but to address the economic mess left by Obama administration.
It still baffles me to witness the fact that liberals fail to realize that the (immediate) boogeyman knocking on the door of USA is its worsening economic situation, and continue to blame imaginary boogeymen in White Privilege (so-called), Racism (supposedly country-wide), Russians and Martians for their loss in elections in 2016.
Focus on climate change is practical and a sound policy in the long-term but you are about to drown in the sea of economic crises before that. So worry about an enemy closest to you right now before focusing on the next.
Do the environmentalists seriously think that eco-friendly stuff is cheap? You need funds for that stuff, lot of funds to be precise. And those funds will come from a flourishing economy, not a struggling one. Just look at the cost of wind turbines alone: http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost (and they are not going to fit everywhere).
Originally posted by Beniboybling
No? I'm well aware that recent studies have being pointing to the notion that we are beyond the point of no return, but that hardly means that we are powerless to mitigate climate catastrophe by taking relevant action. This is not difficult to understand.
It is also important to understand that the most we can hope to achieve right now is to slow down global warming process with (worldwide) eco-friendly practices and (delay) the inevitable. However, we are not going to prevent the inevitable. Therefore, a balanced approach is need of the hour, an approach which takes both economics and eco-friendly practices into consideration.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
And funnily enough, that same source concludes that "most of recent [climate] change is almost certainly due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activities" and recommends action, not complacency.
I have obtained a copy of this book.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Maybe because of the worrying lack of concerning regarding climate change expressed by the Trump administration, and the equally worrying set of policies that they plan to implement, or something. 😬
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Because when the future President of the one the largest CO2 emitters on the planet has has said climate change is a Chinese hoax, that's cause for concern.
Suppose that you become POTUS. What will you do about a large number of families in the U.S. whose income comes from coal mining industry? Destroy the industry and leave them to their fate? These people will fight for their survival, one way or the other. And you will be up against a new episode of law and order situation.
Therefore, a pragmatic approach to the aforementioned problem is to put pressure on the coal mining industry to go green but let the competition take its course and define its fate. Shale revolution is the greatest competitor to coal mining industry and might kill it on its own. As it happens, convince coal miners to go shale. In the end, you achieve the desired results and people are happy. 🙂
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I would love to, but I'm not a world leader. On the other hand no, I don't trust the Trump administration to implement such a strategy, and appears much more likely to send environmentalist progress back by several decades.
The failure of Obama administration to address the economic woes of a large number of Americans, enabled the entrepreneurs to take advantage of the situation and gain power. It is not that Trump is a better character than Obama in person, Trump's appeal is that he understands the economic situation of the country much better than the latter.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Nay, I'm sure there are plenty. Just like there are plenty of "credible scientists" who believe the universe is only 6000 years old, that the earth is flat, and that evolution is a hoax.
You seem like a reasonable and decent person, but labelling the opposition like that is not doing any favors to your position. /shrug
What is more, your point is easily refutable. I doubt you'd label all of these people as charlatans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
EDIT: For some reaoson this link does not work, here type in in Wiki:
"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"
Yeah, there is a Nobel Laureate, MIT professors and dozens upon dozens of scientists and scholars alike that challenge the notion of human-made climate change.
Some of them argue the precision of research and data used, some flat out oppose the notion of human-made climate change and some even propose a "third way" in the research. 👆
Science is not a matter of dogma and should not be treated as such. 👆
Originally posted by NewGuy01
100% irrefutable evidence is rarely a thing in modern science.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Generally what's universally accepted is what the experts agree is most likely to be the case based on the evidence, and that's probably not the wrong way to go about things.
What is mostly accepted by majority of experts does not mean it is most likely to be the best explanation. Just ask Copernicus, Newton, Einstein or any major scientific figure.
What is accepted by most of the scientific community is just a general consensus, not the best answer. And it can easily be changed with new discoveries.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Nay, I'm sure there are plenty. Just like there are plenty of "credible scientists" who believe the universe is only 6000 years old, that the earth is flat, and that evolution is a hoax.
Lol nope. A person isn't credible if they disbelieve in things that have been proven. There isn't a credible scientist who believes in evolution. Well, let me change that. I suppose a scientist who studies..I dunno, fungi..could still be stupid enough to believe evolution isn't a thing.
But if your expertise falls into fields which would include evolution and you do not believe in it? You are so far from credible it's not even funny.
That would be like a college math professor who disagree's 1+1=2.
100% irrefutable evidence is rarely a thing in modern science. Generally what's universally accepted is what the experts agree is most likely to be the case based on the evidence, and that's probably not the wrong way to go about things.
So do you maybe sorta think people should stop carrying themselves in a way that suggests there is no way they are wrong about climate change?
I'm not saying you specifically do that, but I see these climate changers coming at Trump like there's not even any real debate over it. So there gosh darn best not be any legit debate over it lol. Otherwise all credibility is lost. So I truly truly hope it's only wacko's who don't think man made climate change is real.
So if people are hung up on me using the term 100% irrefutable, okie dokie. It's been changed: there best not be any legit credible debate over man made climate change.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDThat's not what I was asking, I'm aware of what global warming is lol, I was questioning your stance that there is little that can be done about mitigating it. However if your argument is that regardless of what we do now, we still face a proverbial carbon hangover, or rather irreversible changes, then fair enough.
Earth's climatic conditions are (already) changing and their effects are slowly (and surely) becoming apparent to anybody who is paying attention; we identify this shift as "global warming."I have noticed this shift at personal capacity in a span of few years, where I live. Winter season used to start during the month of September (each year) here. However, delays are occurring now. In 2015, Winter season started during the month of October here. And further delay in 2016. I have also noticed a decline in the periods of colder climatic conditions here; hotter climatic conditions are lasting longer now. Not just me but scores of people (here) have noticed the aforementioned shifts and acknowledge them in discussions.
I am not sure what changes you might be noticing where you live but you are welcome to share them.
1. So what is actually happening? Earth's axis is shifting a bit.
2. Why Earth's axis is shifting? Polar ice caps are melting and influencing Earth's axis accordingly.
3. So what is causing the polar ice caps to melt? Global warming.Now, fossil fuel industry is the leading cause of the current phase of global warming! Right?
Yes, we should do something about this matter. However, my argument is that measures should be pragmatic and calculative. Laying a siege to country-wide fossil fuel extractions (like the idiots Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton suggested) is not going to address this matter and neither this policy is economically feasible for the U.S and other countries. A solid reason is that high concentrations of CO2 emissions will remain in the air for a long time (thousands of years) even if the entire world literally freezes fossil fuel extractions this instant; in other words, global warming process will continue (and is irreversible) no matter what we do now.Economic infeasibility is the only solid reason here, while I acknowledge that even if carbon emissions were to cease now, we'd still be faced with continued global warming, that is no basis for continuing to emit. Or rather if you've consumed so much alcohol that an extended hangover is a guarantee, a hangover you do not want, the responsible thing to do is not say "f*ck it" and continuing drinking. But rather to stop drinking entirely. The deeply troubling state we are likely already in no grounds to take a softer approach to reducing carbon emissions. Instead the best case scenario remains - in an ideal world - a complete stop to greenhouse gases entirely.
Bear in mind that though we are an adaptable species, there is only so much we can adapt to, and the more emissions we produce, the harder it will be to adapt to a warmer future, however inevitable that maybe.
That said? We are adaptable, and therefore it will come as no surprise that scientists are already looking into ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere. If someone would only fund them. 🙄
So best course of action is to force the fossil fuel industry to turn green but this shift will take time as well. Even Donald Trump is endorsing the "clean coal" industrial initiative. But the grim reality is that all efforts to make American coal mining activity greener have utterly failed so far due to a combination of factors such as emergence of relatively greener substitute in shale revolution and unsuitable policies of Obama administration. The state should have cooperated with the coal mining industry to turn green instead of shutting it down. End-result is loss of a number of corporations, increase in unemployment and greater strain on the already struggling economy.Clean coal seems like a pipe dream more than anything, fact is coal is the worst polluter of all the fossil fuels, so attempting to revive it comes with intrinsic dangers. If Donald Trump had demonstrated serious commitments towards a green future I might be less concerned, but his blase faire attitude leaves much to be desired, instead I have serious doubts that these resurrected industries will be anything but "clean".
And the fact remains what we are discussing is a dying industry, coal prices are tumbling, exports are declining, dozens of major industries are going bankrupt, and as a fossil fuel it's being replaced with better alternatives. Any jobs created by Trump's initiatives would be a stop-gap measure, with little long term prospects. And that's without going in to the fact that in so far, efforts to so much as develop economically viable "clean coal" energy, have also failed.
So no, I'm more inclined to support putting the final nail in the coffin of a dirty industry with one foot in the grave rather than invest in a dangerous waste of time and money attempting to prop it up.
Since Barack Obama's tenure as POTUS is coming to an end and he is going to live a good life in his new home in Washington DC (filled with mouthwatering luxuries), the incoming Trump administration is left with no choice but to address the economic mess left by Obama administration.Like the recession inducing economic mess left by the Bush administration? Seems like every government is leaving the next with an "economic mess" these days, I wonder what Trump will leave his successors? Besides billions of tonnes of carbon emissions that is.
It still baffles me to witness the fact that liberals fail to realize that the (immediate) boogeyman knocking on the door of USA is its worsening economic situation, and continue to blame imaginary boogeymen in White Privilege (so-called), Racism (supposedly country-wide), Russians and Martians for their loss in elections in 2016.Completely off-topic, so I won't bother addressing it.
Focus on climate change is practical and a sound policy in the long-term but you are about to drown in the sea of economic crises before that. So worry about an enemy closest to you right now before focusing on the next.Not at the expense of what may well prove to be a greater threat than we've ever faced. In fact, the World Economic Forum have themselves concluded climate change disaster to be the the biggest existing threat to the global economy. Short-sightedness is not a good policy in any contexts, I thought a balanced approach was need of the hour?
Do the environmentalists seriously think that eco-friendly stuff is cheap? You need funds for that stuff, lot of funds to be precise. And those funds will come from a flourishing economy, not a struggling one. Just look at the cost of wind turbines alone: http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost (and they are not going to fit everywhere).Do you think the catastrophic damage climate change is predicted to be less expensive? It could cost us trillions of dollars darling. Environmentalist initiatives are cheap change in comparison.
Yes, I get this.It's not a question of delaying the inevitable, its a question of preventing it from getting worse and innovating solutions to make things better.It is also important to understand that the most we can hope to achieve right now is to slow down global warming process with (worldwide) eco-friendly practices and (delay) the inevitable. However, we are not going to prevent the inevitable. Therefore, a balanced approach is need of the hour, an approach which takes both economics and eco-friendly practices into consideration.
It is important to understand what Trump wants to do and how media is interpreting his intentions. He is not against eco-friendly industrial practices actually. He just wants to make sure that the state itself doesn't hammers the coal mining industry out of existence. He is correct to assume that coal as a source of energy is not going to diminish anytime soon, liberal propaganda notwithstanding.Uh-huh, the media needn't interpret his intentions when he's made them plainly clearly, every policy I've referred to has come from his own mouth, some examples:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-epa-dept-of-education
https://www.bna.com/trump-says-plan-n57982082131/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36401174
"The environment will be fine?" - doesn't sound particularly eco-friendly to me.
Most worryingly now as President-elect, Trump has expressed his intentions to slash funding to NASA's (vital) climate research, tell me, how are we supposed to find out more about the realities of global warming without doing the science?
Altogether you'll have to forgive me if I don't buy your special insights into what Trump "really" thinks. "Liberal propaganda" non-withstanding.
Continued from above.
See above.The mainstream media aren't in control of his Twitter account either:
Sorry.
Suppose that you become POTUS. What will you do about a large number of families in the U.S. whose income comes from coal mining industry? Destroy the industry and leave them to their fate? These people will fight for their survival, one way or the other. And you will be up against a new episode of law and order situation.I'd tell them to invest in a more stable future. The US coal industry is failing, and will fail with or without environmentalist restrictions. You talk about boogeyman and yet as far as scape goats are concerned, climate change seems to be the man of the hour here.
If America wants jobs, they should be looking to alternative industries, and preferably greener ones. The demand for power certainly isn't going away.
Therefore, a pragmatic approach to the aforementioned problem is to put pressure on the coal mining industry to go green but let the competition take its course and define its fate. Shale revolution is the greatest competitor to coal mining industry and might kill it on its own. As it happens, convince coal miners to go shale. In the end, you achieve the desired results and people are happy. 🙂Pressure is already being put on the coal mining industry to go green, it appears to be buckling under its own weight. Time to phase it out, not lie to Americans with nonsense promises of "millions of high paying jobs" - it's not going to happen.
We should give it a chance.Well we hardly have a choice now do we, the wise American electorate have decided on all our fates. 🙂
The failure of Obama administration to address the economic woes of a large number of Americans, enabled the entrepreneurs to take advantage of the situation and gain power. It is not that Trump is a better character than Obama in person, Trump's appeal is that he understands the economic situation of the country much better than the latter.As far as climate change is concerned, the Obama's administration reduced CO2 emissions by billions of tonnes, Trump's administration is predicted to have that steadily increasing again.
Whatever Trump understands it doesn't appear to be how to balance economic interests against the realities of global warming, that much is quite apparent.
Originally posted by Surtur
A person isn't credible if they disbelieve in things that have been proven.
Circular logic.
There isn't a credible scientist who believes in evolution.
Oh, I assure you there are quite a few.
I suppose a scientist who studies..I dunno, fungi..could still be stupid enough to believe evolution isn't a thing.
Fungi evolve. Actually, if you replaced "evolution" with "global warming" this sentence would make more sense.
But if your expertise falls into fields which would include evolution and you do not believe in it? You are so far from credible it's not even funny.
--and that's because the vast majority of experts on the subject agree that's where the overwhelming evidence points.
So do you maybe sorta think people should stop carrying themselves in a way that suggests there is no way they are wrong about climate change?
Dunno. Do you think you should stop carrying yourself in a way that suggests there is no way you're wrong about evolution?
I mean, surely if there wasn't a valid argument for creationism, it wouldn't be such a divisive issue. Right?
I never said that being a contested issue means there is merit. I'm simply saying with the way people carry themselves, I hope there isn't an actual credible argument against man made climate change.
Note I say credible. I haven't, so far, heard any credible arguments coming from creationists.
But anyways, to avoid any further confusion, in a nut shell I am saying people should not act sure of something unless they are sure of something. Your responses indicate to me they are indeed sure, which is essentially what I wanted to know.
Originally posted by Surtur
I never said that being a contested issue means there is merit.
Originally posted by Surtur
But then how could there be so much damn controversy over man made climate change if we have 100% irrefutable evidence?
Whoops.
But anyways, to avoid any further confusion, in a nut shell I am saying people should not act sure of something unless they are sure of something. Your responses indicate to me they are indeed sure, which is essentially what I wanted to know.
Everything I've seen points that way, yeah.