Climate Change - Will The Left Believe The Science Now?

[CLAX1911]

Once again, I have to ask you an important question: are you claiming that only land that is untillable is used to raise cattle?

you don't ever have to ask this question I'm claiming what I stated read what I stated.

 

[trouble13]

Correct. But humans can process it too. Unfortunately, most of those processes are not profitable, so capitalism will fight against their implementation.

So a small population resolves that issue

 

[trouble13]

Because Billionaires' wealth has more value to you than people's lives. "Poor people can be sterilized as long as the property of the wealthy is sacrosanct"

Wealth isn't the metric i would use to determine who gets sterilized. I perfer genetic flaws as the determining factor.

 

[watsup]

For approximately 7,300,000 days the global temperature has been rising.

So you deny that the climate changes? I'm not interested in you doing research. If you want to go do it.

but my problem
lol. No. I have the advantage. Try reading. I know people hate doing that but if you want details you put in the leg work. I'm not handing you anything. Then you won't learn.
This isn't a serious debate. I'm mocking climate alarmism.

Okay, so you admit that you are not engaged, from your end, in a serious debate, but that "mocking" is your goal. At least you are being honest. Nevertheless, I will continue to correct the disinformation that you continue to present.
While the long-term cycle is that we are in an inter-glaciation period, the fact is that the atmospheric and ocean temperatures are rising at a much faster rate since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution than they otherwise would had not homo sapiens began the practice of spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. And this is not "climate alarmism". That's a denier talking point. It's solid science by mainstream climate scientists on a worldwide basis. That is a fact.

 

[watsup]

Didn't say AGW was a religion.

You have indeed implied that AGW is a "faith" like religion. No matter how you try to parse it away.

 

[watsup]

I haven't denied AGW.

Suggesting I'm a denier (heretic) just affirms the parallel to other religions.

I don't care if I'm a sinner in this religion, I'm not a member of it.

You just said that you did NOT compare it to a religion, now you do. So we can't actually trust what you say from one post to another. Okay, glad to know that.

And I am defining AGW and denier in the mainstream usage of the word, and will continue to do so. Change it for your own purposes if you wish, but that won't stop me from using it correctly

And what evidence to you have that it is homo sapiens that is causing the overall warming trend of which you speak? And it is not rising "steadily" over that period of time. There has been at least one "little ice age" in which the temperature of the Earth cooled significantly for a period of time.

 

[CLAX1911]

Okay, so you admit that you are not engaged, from your end, in a serious debate, but that "mocking" is your goal. At least you are being honest. Nevertheless, I will continue to correct the disinformation that you continue to present.
While the long-term cycle is that we are in an inter-glaciation period, the fact is that the atmospheric and ocean temperatures are rising at a much faster rate since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution than they otherwise would had not homo sapiens began the practice of spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. And this is not "climate alarmism". That's a denier talking point. It's solid science by mainstream climate scientists on a worldwide basis. That is a fact.

The belief that there's going to be a catastrophe and the only way to avoid it is to act stupidly right now is absolutely climate alarmism. If you disagree that's fine. But I'm not going to stop saying it just because it gets your knickers in a knot.

 

[watsup]

The belief that there's going to be a catastrophe and the only way to avoid it is to act stupidly right now is absolutely climate alarmism. If you disagree that's fine. But I'm not going to stop saying it just because it gets your knickers in a knot.

Say it all you want. It's denier doctrine. I prefer listening to the scientists who have done the research and study and compiled the data. Have fun with your mockery while they do the hard work.

 

[CLAX1911]

You just said that you did NOT compare it to a religion, now you do. So we can't actually trust what you say from one post to another. Okay, glad to know that.

I didn't compare AGW to a religion I compared it climate alarmism to a religion because it absolutely is exactly like any other religion.

And I am defining AGW and denier in the mainstream usage of the word, and will continue to do so. Change it for your own purposes if you wish, but that won't stop me from using it correctly

you can call me your version of a heretic all you want it only strengthens my position that climate alarmism is a religion.

And what evidence to you have that it is homo sapiens that is causing the overall warming trend of which you speak?

I didn't claim that they did.

And it is not rising "steadily" over that period of time. There has been at least one "little ice age" in which the temperature of the Earth cooled significantly for a period of time.

indicating global temperatures can fluctuate.

 

[CLAX1911]

Say it all you want. It's denier doctrine. I prefer listening to the scientists who have done the research and study and compiled the data. Have fun with your mockery while they do the hard work.

You can call me a heretic all you want I'm not part of your religion so it doesn't matter.

Denier=heretic

what you're doing is cherry picking scientists that say what you agree with and that's fine I'm not here to convert you.

 

[calamity]

Well, most everyone on the right (other than extremists) have been arguing for years and decades that fighting mother nature is a globally bankrupting losing battle (most don't deny the Earth is warming). Well, now a new study has concluded just that. Even if we came to a complete stop today in sending green house gases into the environment, the Earth would keep warming for centuries. Greta and the left keep on harping we can't do this, we can't do that, these things need to be outlawed, and falsely claim we can get a handle on climate change if we just change our Earth destroying ways. Well, sorry Greta, no, you were wrong. Our only hope is carbon capture technology. Changing our ways isn't going to help at all, no matter how much we change our ways. We need to concentrate on carbon capture technology, not on telling the world we can't live like we have been anymore. If Greta and the left have any credibility left at all anymore it will be to stop with their nonsense of we can't do this and we can't do that and protest in favor of carbon capture technology. Will the left believe in science now or stick with their crazed you can't do this anymore agenda?

• Even if the world were to stop emitting greenhouse gases right now, the Earth would keep warming for centuries, a new study shows.
• The researchers suggest sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and storing it underground — a solution known as carbon capture and storage.

Any hope of keeping Earth habitable now requires sucking carbon back out of the atmosphere, a new study found

Even if greenhouse-gas emissions stop now, global warming will continue for centuries, a study shows. The solution: removing carbon from the air.

www.yahoo.com

Yes, when you set fire to your house, it will burn to the ground. News at 11.

 

[trouble13]

Say it all you want. It's denier doctrine. I prefer listening to the scientists who have done the research and study and compiled the data. Have fun with your mockery while they do the hard work.

Is your faith in their opinions based on only their credentials or do you have other reasons convincing you they are correct?

 

[CLAX1911]

You have indeed implied that AGW is a "faith" like religion. No matter how you try to parse it away.

False climate alarmism is a religion. I know you want to say You're beliefs are facts that's what every religion wants yet another example of how it's similar to other religion

 

[watsup]

You can call me a heretic all you want I'm not part of your religion so it doesn't matter.

Denier=heretic

what you're doing is cherry picking scientists that say what you agree with and that's fine I'm not here to convert you.

I'm not the one doing the cherry picking--you are. Cherry picking refers to looking for a PARTICULAR cherry as opposed to simply picking whichever cherry is within reach without resort to looking for a particular one. I am in concert with the mainstream climate scientists throughout the world who have devoted their time and effort to research and data. I put the science first, and then do the agreeing. You put your denier belief firsts, and then look for a PARTICULAR person who will agree with you. That's cherry picking defined.
And no matter how often you call AGW a religion, it is science.

 

[watsup]

False climate alarmism is a religion. I know you want to say You're beliefs are facts that's what every religion wants yet another example of how it's similar to other religion

There's no "false climate alarmism". The economic and environmental problems that will occur as a result of AGW are carefully documented and available to you is you care to look.

 

[watsup]

Is your faith in their opinions based on only their credentials or do you have other reasons convincing you they are correct?

First of all, it's not "faith", it's an understanding of how science works as regards research, data, and subsequent evidence, which is what the climate scientists have done. Any reason that I might have, such as noticing that the days are warmer in November than they used to be, is anecdotal and clearly secondary to the scientific data.

 

[trouble13]

I'm not the one doing the cherry picking--you are. Cherry picking refers to looking for a PARTICULAR cherry as opposed to simply picking whichever cherry is within reach without resort to looking for a particular one. I am in concert with the mainstream climate scientists throughout the world who have devoted their time and effort to research and data. I put the science first, and then do the agreeing. You put your denier belief firsts, and then look for a PARTICULAR person who will agree with you. That's cherry picking defined.
And no matter how often you call AGW a religion, it is science.

I have seen you repeatedly make the argument that your opinion is in concensus with the majority of the experts. Im not gonna argue that you or them have the wrong opinion. I dont know how significant or insignificant mans behavior impacts the planets environment. These scientists do however have an opinion about that and you keep claiming their opinions are facts. My question for you is....
Can you point to something that can be proven correct that they have claimed in the past?
I honestly can not and for that reason it leaves room for skepticism for me.

 

[trouble13]

First of all, it's not "faith", it's an understanding of how science works as regards research, data, and subsequent evidence, which is what the climate scientists have done. Any reason that I might have, such as noticing that the days are warmer in November than they used to be, is anecdotal and clearly secondary to the scientific data.

I could of used the word confidence instead of faith. I wasn't implying anything bad. I am just curious where your confidence cones from that you are so adamant with your opinion that you allow no room for any disagreement.

 

[watsup]

I could of used the word confidence instead of faith. I wasn't implying anything bad. I am just curious where your confidence cones from that you are so adamant with your opinion that you allow no room for any disagreement.

It's not "opinion". The atmosphere and the oceans are getting warmer due to the excess CO2 being emitted into the air by human activity. The evidence for that is clear. It is you who has an "opinion" that such is not true, but how much effort have you made to delve into the research and data? That is where the truth lies about AGW, opinion be damned.

 

[watsup]

I have seen you repeatedly make the argument that your opinion is in concensus with the majority of the experts. Im not gonna argue that you or them have the wrong opinion. I dont know how significant or insignificant mans behavior impacts the planets environment. These scientists do however have an opinion about that and you keep claiming their opinions are facts. My question for you is....
Can you point to something that can be proven correct that they have claimed in the past?
I honestly can not and for that reason it leaves room for skepticism for me.

It depends on what you mean by "proven correct". There is data and research that shows the clear evidence for manmade global warming. It is as close to a scientific fact as one can find. Does that mean that they can predict down to a hair what the temp will be on any particular day of the year. Of course not. But when month after month, year after year, the weather gets warmer than before, what would YOUR conclusion be? Because that is what is happening. In fact, in many cases, the effects of climate change is going FASTER than earlier predicted. Glaciers are melting faster than many scientists predicted. Ice is melting faster in the Arctic regions. What is causing that, why are the effects of global warming occurring more rapidly than previously predicted? And what will be the long-term environmental and economic effects? And if man is causing it, shouldn't man have the responsibility to try to stem it?

 

[trouble13]

It's not "opinion". The atmosphere and the oceans are getting warmer due to the excess CO2 being emitted into the air by human activity. The evidence for that is clear. It is you who has an "opinion" that such is not true, but how much effort have you made to delve into the research and data? That is where the truth lies about AGW, opinion be damned.

Can you point me to a past prediction based on the facts that they got correct?

 

[watsup]

Can you point me to a past prediction based on the facts that they got correct?See

See my post #545 for an in-depth answer to that question.

 

[CLAX1911]

I'm not the one doing the cherry picking--you are. Cherry picking refers to looking for a PARTICULAR cherry as opposed to simply picking whichever cherry is within reach without resort to looking for a particular one.

Again I'm not the one suggesting people I disagree with are wrong. With regard to these religions I'm agnostic.

I am in concert with the mainstream climate scientists throughout the world who have devoted their time and effort to research and data.

You are cherry picking based on popularity (mainstream). I am not.

I put the science first, and then do the agreeing.

only if it's mainstream.

You put your denier belief firsts, and then look for a PARTICULAR person who will agree with you.

Again with regard to these religions I'm agnostic. You can call me a devil worshipper if it makes you feel better.

That's cherry picking defined.

Yes the caricature you invented and pretend it's anybody that disagrees with you is cherry picking. But not me.

And no matter how often you call AGW a religion, it is science.

Good thing I never called AGW a religion however climate alarmism is.

 

[CLAX1911]

There's no "false climate alarmism". The economic and environmental problems that will occur as a result of AGW are carefully documented and available to you is you care to look.

Amen!

 

[trouble13]

It depends on what you mean by "proven correct". There is data and research that shows the clear evidence for manmade global warming. It is as close to a scientific fact as one can find.

Are we talking about facts or things that are close to facts? I hope you can see what I mean by pointing out your verbal parsing.

Does that mean that they can predict down to a hair what the temp will be on any particular day of the year. Of course not. But when month after month, year after year, the weather gets warmer than before, what would YOUR conclusion be?

I agree I am not looking to claim something is wrong over a semantical error. That being said they should be able to predict things sooner than 20 years out.
I remember in the 80s they claimed their opinions were facts too. We are supposed to be in nuclear winter by now according to those experts and now many of those same people are claiming its causing warming. Thats a complete 180.

Because that is what is happening. In fact, in many cases, the effects of climate change is going FASTER than earlier predicted. Glaciers are melting faster than many scientists predicted. Ice is melting faster in the Arctic regions. What is causing that, why are the effects of global warming occurring more rapidly than previously predicted?

Yes the planet is in a warming period. How long it will last. How warm will it get. Whats causing it. These are questions we all have. I just am not as convinced as you are that these scientists have the correct answers.
For instance it is also a fact that our sun has also gotten warmer. It is also a fact that the polar caps on mars have shrunk also. I think its reasonable to conclude that its at least a contributing factor for our caps melting too.

And what will be the long-term environmental and economic effects?

Hopefully it will be manageable or we could all die.

And if man is causing it, shouldn't man have the responsibility to try to stem it?

It does not really matter whats causing it. Man has a responsibility to survive. We either have to adapt to the new environment or figure out a way to control the planets environment. Thats the plain reality we face.