PLEASE watch this video. im not being facetious. this guy is a scientist and explains in a dumbed down way even I could understand, how its incredibly obvious that releasing billions of billions of tonnes of carbon is having an effect. its cause and effect, its undeniable.
hes not some leftist wacko. in fact he had videos shitting all over woke nonsense and feminists.
I know its a long video to watch but if you do and cant show why hes full of shit go for it
Here's my question. Everyone right now is pushing electric cars, which implies that vehicle exhaust is a major factor. All the auto manufacturers have made huge strides in the last 30yrs to reduce emissions. Yet they're still reporting climbing numbers. What gives? Either cars are not the major pollutant or someone is lying.
Until we have drastic population control to put down regular pollution that happens, we can't get ahead of any kind of change.Population growth will always shut down any trying to change something.
Not only that but we are far from the largest contributor. Until the eco-fascists are able to wrangle China and India into the mix, nothing we do is gonna matter. This is one of the issues I have with this hard push for electric vehicles. It will cost us trillions and globally, won't amount to a hill of beans. It just makes 'them' feel better.
No, they are not. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with energy independence. Like I said, we had that before Biden. How can you look at one thing and see something else???
My issue is many nations have done a great deal to help the planet, with the exceptions of nations like China. But we aren't allowed to criticize them.
Living in the dark ages is the only real solution to this problem, which means there's honestly not much more than can be done other than what is currently happening.
Blame whomever you want to, but at this point blaming only man is absurd. Climate does change and evolve naturally. It always has and always will.
People will always want some kind of gadget is why the depopulating is needed. As the move to electric the cars will be smaller so a large family can't be done anymore. One vehicle per house will need to be the law.
Have you seen pictures of the new track homes they are building?. Nothing but one car garages and no yards.Gas lawn equipment gone but really no big deal as nobody has yards any more.
with the exceptions of nations like China
on the other hand the world cant just conveniently use china as an excuse to completely ignore the problem.
also most of chinas emmisions are because they are the workshop of the rest of the world.
Living in the dark ages is the only real solution to this problem,
There will be unpalatable changes yes , but again , thats not a reason to ignore the problem
Secondly - we %will% deal with the problem before long because there is very limited fossil fuel left , especisally oil , and that "come down" will hurt a lot more if we havent made some affort to build a few windmills or whatever.
blaming only man is absurd. Climate does change and evolve naturally
Studies have proven its way beyond that . its definitely man made . its a real thing . and will effect ecosystem badly. proven.
Saying "its got hot before" is like standing in your house when its on fire , saying "Temperatures fluctuated before - remember last summer when we had that heatwave?"
Its nothing like that don't be silly. We do know for a fact that climate changes naturally without humans changing it. How? Because its happened before. That doesn't mean this time around it all human fault.
I never said we shouldn't deal with it, but when the biggest polluters won't change and our government won't stand up to them what are we to do? We can't go overboard because others keep polluting. That is not how this works.
Sorry but the sharp increase they show in the last few years makes it look politically motivated. This goes to my point above. Vehicle emissions are lower by a huge margin. Coal power is clean. If electric vehicles are the answer, why has nothing else made a difference? From my perspective, they're either lying about how bad it is getting or electric vehicles won't be enough. Or both. I'm not a scientist but I know what bullshit smells like.
Electric vehicles are a tiny part of the answer .
Coal power is not clean.
That last tiny part of the graph is the entire modern age since oil was discovered and the free energy it gave giving rise to a massive explosion of population growth and all of those people burning more fossil fuel .
which is the problem.
We have however , in just the last 200 years burnt half of all the oil that formed in the earth over the last several million years , and the other half is a lot harder to get at ,
so this problem will resolve itself sooner or later
informative if a different approach to a graph. but yes anyone who says :temperatures changed and always have" dont understand anything about climatology and what the experts are saying. and how this has been an insane temperature increase in such a short period of time pretty much never seen before.
Also the fact temperature changes (if not at this rate) happened at different times in the far history, doesnt say anything how an extremely fragile human social and economic system with 7.8 billion will cope with this instability.
"derp derp its okay cause da crocodiles experiences it before so it'll be fine"
This was nicely done. Stupid, yes, but nicely done. Notice how much change we seen before the industrialization. That is massive. So, yes, we saw huge changes before we went really big, and the changes before that were natural and clearly not the fault of humans. Which only proves what I've been saying. Humans are totally blame free, but to give them all the blame is crazy talk. Its been a mixed bag over the last 130 plus years.
"Its nothing like that don't be silly. We do know for a fact that climate changes naturally without humans changing it. How? Because its happened before. That doesn't mean this time around it all human fault."
wow man... so the scientists have no clue. haven't been measuring carbon output and mans influence. and just didnt realize it was natural process?
you dont understand the science if you think anything you said.
I get the idea from constant posts from republicans want to ignore the problem because they dont want to give up their Harleys and their Hummers (fair enough who wants that) and justify it by saying
- 'no point cos china'
- 'isnt real temperature has changed in the past'
1. curious who said we arent allowed to criticize china? the reason our western climate activists focus on western countries most is because they are westerners....
2. it sent the only real solution. No expert says this. Climate science deniers, whoa re mostly conservative, are fighting tooth and nail to do anything to stop any solution.
3. you seem to fall into the category who doesn't understand climate change science at all.... and instead have straw manned everything and dont want an honest conversation
Rally asking me why we aren't allowed to question them? Look at how much we bow to them. Meanwhile we ignore all their slave labor and cheer for them. Even the GOP does it besides Trump that is. Which was all an act anyway. They pollute the most, yet what are they doing? Because in the US we are taking action. It might not be as quickly as some want, but its not easy to ask all American drivers to switch to an electric or hybrid car.
I'm willing to debate, but I'm not willing to accept that the humans did this all. That is just nonsense. Notice I'm not saying we have had nothing to do with it.
Allowing China to get away with what they do is bowing to them. Biden and the Democrats, Republicans too for that matter, always ignore the disgusting things their government does to their people.
But who cares right, because we get cheap goods from their sweatshops.
You're allowed to criticize whomever you want but freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. You know that. China is a powerful nation with many economic tendrils and they can put a lot of pressure on people who criticize them. Deep down you know that no one is blaming only man. Industrialization has increased the rate of climate change. Scientists should do a better job at communicating it that way but that is what they mean even if they don't make it clear. We rip down forests. Pump billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, along with other chemicals ... How is it not going to have an effect? Of course, it will. The US Navy documented global warming in the 50s and considered it a national defense problem. It wasn't controversal until the oil industry hired PR firms to spread misinformation.
The biggest issue isnt that man made climate change is happening per say.
its the rate at which this climate change and global temperatures are
increasing. For example it took from 18k BCE to 14.5k BCE for the temp
to change 1 degrees. thats 35k years. the global average has now moved 1
degree in 100 YEARS.
planting trees dont work. it temporarily stores carbon, that gets rereleased
when they die. its not like they are magic oxygen creating machines that
permanently get rid of CO2. the best we can do is try and currently slow
greenhouse gas emissions. to mitigate the worst and canted effects of GW.
As technology increased solar geoengineering will be our best route to
lower global temperatures. One such process (the link lists a few) would
be
Scientists are experimenting with releasing sulfate aerosols
into the stratosphere using airplanes or hot air balloons, where the
aerosols can effectively increase sunlight reflectance but are too high to
cause dangerous air pollution levels (Figure 2).
The main advantages of this method are speed, reversibility, and relative
cost-effectiveness, as it is estimated to cost $2.5 billion per year. Additionally,
sulfate aerosols are relatively well studied because they already exist in
the atmosphere.
Putting the paste back in the tube isn't going to work whether its real or not. You can't reverse so stop wasting time with that plan. Enslaving/murdering humanity is not the answer.
The answer is develop solutions to the problems as they develop. That's what we do, we solve problems facing us, not debate endlessly about what could happen, while doing nothing other than quadruple down on useless green energy, and enslavement of humanity.
"That's what we do, we solve problems facing us, not debate endlessly about what could happen, while doing nothing..."
You must be new ... Start at the industrial revolution and work your way forward, because that's exactly what we do until the public pressure becomes so overwhelming that bribes can't stop regulation. Lead, tobacco, cfc's, arsenic, radium, there is a long history of obfuscating the issues leading to confusion.
AGW is basically a new religion. People have subscribed to AGW with little to no scrutiny, all the while proclaiming people who actually do the footwork and research it who have legitimate doubts are nothing more than shills, morons, in denial, etc.
Casting doubt on AGW is akin to casting doubt on the church in more secular times. The arguments for AGW completely ignore the many sound contentions against AGW, just like a religious zealot refuses to believe scientific data that challenges their ideology.
The ice records show the global temp has risen as much as 15C in ~decade, long before humans had any industrialization.
Many variables that AGW proponents outright ignore need to be taken into consideration. E.g. urban encroachment on formerly rural thermometers used to measure global average temperature. Urban "hot-spots" could easily be be causing inaccurate data.
The United Nations Framework convention on Climate Change is pretty unambiguous in its mandate to the I.P.C.C. to make the case for anthropogenic climate change to the exclusion of all other factors. And given that congressional investigations have revealed that Exxon contributed only around $30 million to various groups over a decade, only some of which had anything to do with climate change, and this was the supposed primary source of funding for the nefarious “astroturf” groups that, it is claimed, are misleading the poor gullible public, I would suggest that one consider the billions, yes billions, that the global warming zealots have received in one form or another in the same time period. There is a lot more I could say but due to constraints of time and space that will have to wait for now. I will only say that the treatment of this “disclosure” by the pro-warming factions is a prime example of propaganda in the service of an agenda rather than an attempt to understand the reality of the situation.
"Sooooo you dont understand climate science and didnt watch the video by the scientist who explained it."
I understand climate science very well(as far as we have figured out this far, which is very little). Your video provided nothing new. It is all used and erroneous talking points meant to fool the intellectually lazy/stunted, while appealing to those who are neither but let knee-jerk emotional reactions take precedent; You will find that covers the vast majority of humans.
"good to see you try and fit as man conservative buzzwords in as possible. and expose your ignorance."
What "buzzwords" were those?
""The ice records show the global temp has risen as much as 15C in ~decade, long before humans had any industrialization."
damn tell me you dont know fuck all without telling me you dont know fuck all."
Again, do you have any point to make? You are babbling nonsensically at this point.
notice you provided no science, no studies, no evidence, nothing. as usual
Tell what studies and what sources you will except?
Before I waste my time, I want to know what you consider "legit" sources. I have many, but You will say they are all bullshit. So I want your list of "legit sources" and I will use only them. reply share
I understand climate science very well(as far as we have figured out this far, which is very little). Your video provided nothing new. It is all used and erroneous talking points meant to fool the intellectually lazy/stunted, while appealing to those who are neither but let knee-jerk emotional reactions take precedent; You will find that covers the vast majority of humans.
It isnt little and the video provided the core basics. you cant have a closed system, and zero cause and effect. You cant massively increase the release of co2, a greenhouse gas, and think it will have no greenhouse effect. this is insanity by you and your fellow deniers.
its why over 88k. or 99.9% of the studies on the topic have the same findings and hence the consensus in science
Again, do you have any point to make? You are babbling nonsensically at this point.
the point is the old talking point you think convinces anyone except idiots like yourself. YES climate has changed in the past! the point is the man made influence is vastly increasing the change at an unprecedented rate.
1 degree in 100 years VS 1 degree from 18 000BCE -14 500 BCE
Tell what studies and what sources you will except?
Before I waste my time, I want to know what you consider "legit" sources. I have many, but You will say they are all bullshit. So I want your list of "legit sources" and I will use only them.
you do know how science works right clown boy? so therefore why would I accept anything less than peer reviewed studies published in journals.
I can give you both specific studies, as well as the aggregate data (which I provided above) on how over 99% of ALL STUDIES on this topic agree with man made climate change. While you search those ill wait for an explanation how releasing 170 000 000 000 metric tonnes of CO2 (not getting into other gases like methane) has had no effect on the planets greenhouse effect and how all the scientists are wrong. and how cause and effect doesnt exist. and how greenhouse gases aren't actually greenhouse gases and dont have that effect.
Ahhhh...
I see.
You cannot name a single source that you are so adamant about that you will state your claim to truth upon. I can't blame you. All of your supposed "facts" are nothing but lies presented as "facts" by the media.
That is truly incredible. You are so sure of your AGW contention that you want to impose your own uninformed will upon the global populace, and you cannot site a single reliable source?
Let me know when you want me to link you to real research.
amazing how I didnt prove anything "from the media". but I did provide an aggregate study of the studies on global warming that back me up. 99% of ALL STUDIES support this
"from an Associated Press report published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922."
do you know what a study is? and peer review you clown? Why THE FUCK do I can what some fishermen said in 1922 and was reported by the Washington post?
'In March 2000, a writer for the UK’s Independent wrote that “snowfalls are now just a thing of the past,” as Britain was undergoing “striking environmental change” (thanks to selfish humans). "
again. journalist, non scientist? I care why?
YOU keep assuming I get my info from "the media" and not scientists.
"The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable." — from an Associated Press report published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922.
On July 5, 1989, Noel Brown, then the director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program, warned of a "10-year window of opportunity to solve" global warming "entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of 'eco-refugees,' threatening political chaos."
In March 2000, a writer for the UK’s Independent wrote that “snowfalls are now just a thing of the past,” as Britain was undergoing “striking environmental change” (thanks to selfish humans).
The IPCC has also hyped snowless winters. In its 2001 report, it claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The data from Rutgers’ Global Snow Lab showed an all-time new record high in autumn snow cover across the northern hemisphere in 2014, when more than 22 million square kilometers were covered.
According to data from the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center cited by meteorologist Mike Mogil, “U.S. snow cover on the morning of Dec. 1, 2015 is the highest on record for this day of the year.” In all, 38.7 percent of the United States was covered in snow, surpassing the previous record — 36.5 percent — set in 2006. Worldwide, similar trends have been observed.
Global Snow Lab data also shows Eurasian autumn snow cover has grown by 50 percent since records began in 1979.
After their predictions were proven wrong, alarmists claimed global warming was actually to blame for the record cold and snow across America and beyond.
In 2007, the chief of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said, "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."
On Jan. 19, 2009, James Hansen, climate expert, firmly declared that President Obama "has only four years to save the Earth".
Carbon Dioxide comprises .0004 of the total atmospheric composition. The natural contribution to the total ambient atmospheric CO2 is 250 times greater than the human contribution, about 750 gigatons naturally compared to 3 gigatons of anthropogenically sourced CO2 residing in the atmosphere at any given time. So, the human contribution to total atmospheric CO2 is .004, which means that anthropogenic sourced C02 comprises only 4 one thousandths part of 4 ten thousandth part, or 0.0000016 part of total atmospheric composition, that is 16 parts out of 10 million. This is what is known as a TRACE GAS, a gas, which, by the way, is absolutely essential to all life on Earth. A gas which has now been declared a “pollutant” by the EPA for purposes of regulatory control.
So tell me, when has the global climate not been changing? What actual empirical evidence, independent of adjusted computer models, is there that most of the warming of the last century is due to human activities when the global climate actually began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-19th century, nearly a century before significant introduction of fossil fuel derived CO2 to the atmosphere?
Glaciers began receding worldwide in the early to mid-19th century after having grown to their greatest extent in 10 thousand years during the Little Ice Age. Throughout the second half of the 20th century they continued doing what they had been doing for at least a century, shrinking back from their LIA maximum. Of course, you must know this.
Are we seriously supposed to believe that complicated natural variables that have driven extreme climate change over and over again, long before a significant anthropogenic influence, have suddenly, in the 20th century ceased to operate? Is sea level rising? Well, yes it has risen roughly 8 inches during the past century. This is about the same as the century before.
It rose nearly 400 feet at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition ca 12 thousand years ago and has been fluctuating up and down ever since. Not infrequently it has stood many feet higher than present. Are we to assume that sea level would never change absent an anthropogenic influence?
Now let me state for the record: It is my belief that humans ARE influencing the climate in multiple ways, not only through introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere but through deforestation, agricultural and industrial activities, and expansion of urban areas. But here is the undeniable fact: the climate of this planet has changed profoundly, dramatically, even catastrophically and has done so repeatedly, on any scale that we care to measure, and it has done so without any help from humans. Don’t call me a climate change “denier” or even imply the same because that will be a complete mischaracterization of my position on the matter. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the climate changes. In fact, it is my opinion that the real climate change deniers or “denialists” or whatever the hell you want to call them are those who refuse to look at the palaeoclimatological record of natural variability, and choose instead to believe that a slight increase in an atmospheric trace gas portends our doom.
"Doom" as in "[we will all be dead in 11 years]" as AOC, Thurnberg, and other pudits insist and the media parrots with zero scrutiny. Children are being brainwashed with that nonsense and are becoming despondent and refusing to do their studies because "What is the point? I'll be dead in 11 years".
Given that current computer models(and all previous predictions) have failed to accurately represent what is occurring now, particularly in terms of the divergence between projections and actual global temperatures, the computer models from the 70s and 80s must have been notoriously inept at producing realistic projections of the future(yet are still referenced as evidence of AGW). Aleast some of the scientists involved in this realized that *there were too many variables to determine precisely the role of CO2 to any high level of confidence.*
What I see is too typical of the fear mongers who are trying to paint a picture of some vast conspiracy to “deny” science, when what they mean by “science” is big government funded, officially sanctioned science that was created in pursuit of an agenda that does not allow dissent or alternate points of view.
Here’s a sure fire way to recognize that the global warming promoters are phonies: as soon as they start throwing out jargon like “Astroturf groups” “deniers” “denialists” “denial machine” “contrarians” “consensus” “Big Tobacco” “mainstream scientists” “legitimate scientific community” “tipping points” etc. etc. ad nauseam, they are admitting that they are not going to talk about the highly complex science of climate change from a broad and balanced perspective, but are instead going to attempt to divert the discussion with just about every logical fallacy that exists.
The implication of all this couldn’t be more in your face obvious. The “legitimate scientific community” consists of the government approved scientists and computer modelers working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and only them. Anyone else who questions, or critiques, the findings and assertions made by the IPCC, no matter their qualifications or expertise, is nothing more than an “outlier” and can be ignored, they are purveyors of a “carefully crafted denial strategy.” And how many times must it be said, over and over again, that consensus is meaningless in science.
Species like polar bears, ice seals, and walruses are thriving. Dr. Susan Crockford, a Canadian wildlife expert, says Arctic marine mammal species are flourishing despite declining summer sea ice. “The Truth about Attenborough’s Falling Walrus” provides evidence from US government biologists in the 1990s that walrus deaths due to falls from cliffs are natural events not cause by declines in summer sea ice blamed on rising CO2. Over-crowding is often the primary cause. Moreover, a comprehensive assessment by the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined in late 2017 that walrus in the Chukchi Sea were not threatened with extinction by lack of ice, despite claims to the contrary made earlier this year by Sir David Attenborough in a highly-publicized Netflix/World Wildlife Fund documentary.
Do you need any more evidence that this is politics, not science?
If you think the climate can be explained in brevity, you should back out of this argument right fucking now.
We have very little understating of climate. It is far too complex to model at any scale other than 1:1. Thus, we have no working models to predict climate change.
I also think you never even read what I posted. You stopped after a few sentences because your meager brain was overloaded with data and actual facts contradicting your dogmatic and zealous world view.
Peer reviewed studies are little more than like-minded members of groupthink patting each other on the back. They only ever have merit when someone with an opposing viewpoint reviews it. Otherwise, there's a strong probability of confirmation bias-based, internally affirmed, errors produced in a confined social bubble. Remember, diversity of thought is strength. Groupthink is the bane of skeptical, logical reason, i.e. real science. People who only surround themselves with like-minded people instead of seeking out challenges by those of various worldviews close their minds to all possibilities, often to the detriment of their own grasp of reality. Sorry, but if that's your sole criteria, you will in most cases only be led down dead-end paths, headlong into false beliefs. And it weakens the validity of your position in a debate or argument. I know you’re smarter and wiser than that. I know you can do better. Always be open to diverse viewpoints.
NO they aren't. its constantly trying to disprove someone else's hypothesis/test, not reaffirm it
That's what it's supposed to be in theory. In the real world that's not what typically happens, due to the frailties and weakness of human nature. Read those links.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply share
your links are bullshit. like the one I showed! this is your problem. you gishagalloped with nonsense. then act shocked others arent "open minded" to your Bullshit
LoL!
THe exact same question I asked you and you refused to answer.
How telling it is that I have provided many references and sources and you have provided none.
Do you have anything of substance to provide?
The motivation is obvious to anyone with a functioning and critically thinking brain.
If you think the government imposing ridiculous taxes and punishments for no good reason is anything other than politics, well, I have a bridge and some swampland to sell you...
We need to depopulate too only essential person in the US. I know we have started by telling Beto and Stacey Abrams they don't have jobs and can leave now. Let's get down to track homes with one car and no parking in the streets.