This will end with millions of people dead and thousands of farmers losing their businesses.
Climate restrictions going too far
- Thread starter Boilermaker03
- Start date
I'll take scientific forecasting from men who don't cry over children's cartoons.
So he or she hasn't been corrupted by the influx of money to steer their research in a certain direction.
You obvoiusly didn't have time to read the article. It is informative.
If you're impressed by a college sophomore posting some disconnected links and take it as "scientific analysis," that's your prerogative. Have fun with it.
I just hope you read the article.
It's pretty unbiased.
The whole climate crisis is BS. The climate naturally changes and for every stat given to support a crisis there's a stat to support no crisis.
Did you read it, though? Because it says "The researchers found that the next ice age is likely to occur in no less than 50 000 years, However, add the effect of man-made global warming, and this number can be increased to 100 000 years."
And he doesn't even get that quite right, at least according to the actual physicist who wrote the article about the study your link references. In that article (linked in the blog post), the author says that natural atmospheric CO2 will delay the next ice age by 50,000 years and that human-driven climate change increases that delay to 100,000.
I don't think it says what you think it says.
Last edited:
It's all BS. Al Gore says we've only got 8 years to turn things around
My climate predication, in the northern half of the US, it'll be cold in the winter and warm in the summer.
In the southern half, it'll be more milder in the winter and hotter in the summer.
It's been like this for a really long time and will be like this for a really long time in the future.
Quit worrying about it so much.
as he flies around on his private jet making climate change speeches.
Yes,I read it and that's why I stated the article was non-biased.
when did the last ice age end - Google Search
www.google.com
A few more articles and information I found interesting.
Last edited:
Ok, then I guess I was just confused about your intent. It seemed you posted it to suggest that global warming is not an issue because we're about to enter an ice age. I agree with you it was non-biased. I also agree with Teddy that an undergrad, even one studying science, probably doesn't have the depth of knowledge required to be considered an expert on the subject. That said, his blog post seems to just be offering up the results of studies done by actual scientists and the generally accepted knowledge of Milankovich cycles, same kind of thing we can see on the NASA website, for instance. So, I'd say it seems generally accurate, but it was hardly scientific "analysis," as suggested by your initial post.
The preponderance of the evidence, as attested to and presented by a large majority of experts around the world who study it -- I am not one, so I can't presume to disprove the work of those who are -- supports the notion that the observed warming over the last several decades and predicted warming in the next century, or so, is the result, primarily, of human activity.
Over vastly larger time scales (like 10s or 100s of thousands of years, thus having little to no relevance on the scale of human lifetimes), the climate also changes naturally.
Climate change is an issue. We are currently in a cycle favorable to mammals and man kind in particular.
I personally question the effect man has had on the changing climate.
There are many natural causes. The first article I linked described many of those natural causes.
Many scientists claim we are currently at the peak of a natural global warming cycle and over the next 10,000 years the temperatures will start dropping.
Yes, I believe we should be stewards of the environment.
That's fine to personally question, but forgive me if I value the opinion of the majority of the scientific community as supported by evidence over yours.
There are many natural causes, yes, and those causes result in changes of something like 4 degrees C over the period of 10s of thousands of years or more. We're currently seeing changes of a couple of degrees over, say, a couple HUNDRED years. Those are vastly different time scales.
It can also simultaneously be true that natural forces might indicate a drop of temperatures over the next 10,000 years AND that human activity is driving temperatures up over the next hundred. Only one of those two things has relevance to impact on human society in the the here and now. Plus, even the blog post you linked suggests that human activity may delay the next ice age by 50k-100k years. If that's true, then we clearly can't count on an impending ice age to save us from our current rising temperatures. I don't know about you, but I don't have 50,000 years to wait around for it.
Me too.
"The here and now"?
Do you think that since the birth of the US in 1776, roughly 250 years ago, through the industrial age, the age of atomic energy, solar power, recycling, etc, to present day, that the climate has changed to the point that it's impacted human life in the US?
The evidence seems to indicate yes, but I don't know why you'd limit it to the US nor why you'd limit it only to things that have already happened and not consider the modeled predictions for the future.
Here's why:
Because there's literally nothing you or I can do to have an impact.
There's a million reasons why the climate might be getting slightly warmer or cooler. One of those might be man, it might not.
You think you're doing your part by recycling your plastic water bottles and newspaper? Fine, do whatever makes you feel good.
As individuals, yes, our impact is severely limited -- though, to be clear, this is not "no impact," but merely a small one. As a society, not so much. We certainly won't make any progress, though, if we all just say "well, I as an individual can have no discernible impact, so there's no reason to do anything."
Except it's not really a "might be" question. It is man AND it is natural causes. Much research has been done to determine the extent to which each is responsible and, barring new evidence, it is clear which has the greater impact.
This kind of dismissal only works if you don't care about the overarching issue. "You think you're doing your part by not walking down the street mugging people? Fine, do whatever makes you feel good." See how ridiculous that sounds when applied to something you (presumably) think is important? And, similar to the impact of a single individual on climate change, one individual not committing crimes has almost no impact on crime rates. That doesn't mean it's not important to NOT mug people whenever you feel like it. If climate change is not a serious issue, then yeah, it's fine to be flippant about people trying to make environmentally-friendly lifestyle choices. If it IS serious, then it makes no sense to simply ignore it, as you seem to be suggesting.
Anyway, I appreciate the largely civil discussion. It wasn't really my intention here to get into whether or not climate change is real nor what we should do about it if it is. I just thought it was funny that someone posted an article that didn't at all support the position for which they were seemingly advocating.
If democrats are really that concerned about climate change, the single largest positive impact they can have, is to not procreate. I'm serious.
Democrats should have either no children or at most, 1 child.
The poster gives an excellent example of why each person is important in the scheme of things……..in thoughtful terms that clearly fits one of your priorities…….and your serious reply is to say that members of the party who are environmentally conscious shouldn’t procreate?
Done
Republicans Have More Kids Than Democrats. A Lot More Kids.
Maybe this is why Republicans keep winning.
Well, so much for the civility I credited you with earlier. Have a good day.
And if there’s Global Warming occurring wouldn’t this facilitate a longer crop growing season which with help feed the world?
I think forced policies by governments is stupid. Unintended consequences occur when government forces policies across the board. Who benefits when farmers are adversely impacted?
For the record I’m for reducing pollution and want a clean environment. Kauai is leading the way in green energy and I produce enough solar energy to sell my excess to the county but we live in an area that has a lot of sunshine year round. Northern US and Europe aren’t as fortunate to have as much annual sunshine. Unfortunately politicians have forgotten common sense regarding energy, farming mandates
I'm all for reducing pollution as well. This "green" energy we are pushing is anything but green though. It pollutes just as much if not more than what we used to use. Not to mention all of the bats and birds of prey that are killed by the windmills. It's almost as if the environmentalists don't actually give a F about the environment...
Wind power is a joke in my opinion. Eye pollution and not reliable unless you live in an area with constant wind not to mention the impact it has on birds. Solar is different if you live in a sunny area. I know the arguments about using fossil fuels and rare earth mining required to manufacture but overall I believe it’s a net positive
Way to tell on yourself that you know nothing about renewables.
Do you have solar on your house? I do love not paying any utility bills and selling excess to the county. I'm glad we don't have windmills on our island that create eye pollution and kill birds.
Last edited:
I don't think it is a net positive. The amount of energy it requires to make the solar panels is incredible. It requires fossil fuels to make them and it takes a lot of energy.
In my case, I'm paying $0 energy and estimate a payback in 6 - 7 years. So economically it's a net positive. With an estimated life of 20 years, this will save me a lot of $. Frankly don't know when payback would be for environment. Not disputing there is an upfront negative impact to produce but am confident this will be offset with 20 years of solar use. Just received my YTD solar report that said my solar has produced 19 MWh YTD
Sure, because it's heavily subsidized.
I'm not talking about net positive economically though, I'm talking environmentally.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Does anyone know if the refs ever review game films?
- Latest: Schmedly_Whiplash
-
