Students around the world go on strike protesting climate change

[Irredentist]

And water vapor is about 95% of all greenhouse gases in the 'sphere, yet, you concentrate on CO2? What about the rain, man?

Because as I just explained, higher concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere cause higher rates of water evaporation, which as you have already stated, causes a greenhouse effect. Congratulations on your basic scientific literacy.

 

[Praxas]

Your whataboutism is unimpressive.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It's not a whataboutism at all, it's a simple question. Why are you unable to answer? What sacrifices are conservatives making in their protests such as those against abortion and gay marriage? YOU made the claim that somehow sacrificing has to be made for a protest to be valid.

 

[JBG]

And water vapor is about 95% of all greenhouse gases in the 'sphere, yet, you concentrate on CO2? What about the rain, man?

The reason is that water vapor can't be taxed; carbon emissions can. And carbon emissions track economic activity. So people who are guilt-ridden about decadent Western hypocrisy focus on carbon.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Really? Care to present some recent evidence of that?

Can you name a scientific organisation which demurs from that consensus?

 

[Irredentist]

The reason is that water vapor can't be taxed; carbon emissions can. And carbon emissions track economic activity. So people who are guilt-ridden about decadent Western hypocrisy focus on carbon.

Carbon emissions also affect the rate of water evaporation. So, the two issues are fundamentally linked.

 

[chuckiechan]

You can't find the answers to those questions for the same reason that a fugitive can't find the police.

Much like proving the existence of God, or as we say "The mystery of faith".

But faith has no place in whether to make a political calculation as to whether we wish to be an economic superpower or not.

 

[cabse5]

Because as I just explained, higher concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere cause higher rates of water evaporation, which as you have already stated, causes a greenhouse effect. Congratulations on your basic scientific literacy.

Eh. CO2 must have an enormously large rate of water evaporation compared to water vapor to be the main culprit in climate change and climate change is one of the most important crises of our times, no?

EDIT: By my basic calculation (5% X 20 = 100% for CO2 compared to 95% for water vapor) , CO2 must have a water evaporation rate that is approx. 20 times greater than water vapor just for CO2 to be slightly greater in water evaporation to water vapor.

 

[Irredentist]

Eh. CO2 must have an enormously large rate of water evaporation compared to water vapor to be the main culprit in climate change and climate change is one of the most important crises of our times, no?

It doesn't need to have an enormously large effect. When the scale is an entire planet, even small changes can have disproportionately large impacts.

 

[eman623]

Of course not! That wouldn't help get a Democrat to beat Trump in 2020. These school kids are mere tools to the Left. Young, impressionable and plenty of rebellious energy.

So true. And the #1 goal is to get 'em while they're young. Kind of like Coke and Pepsi. They don't spend bazillions advertising to get people to switch brands. They do it to establish brand loyalty among young people.

 

[eman623]

Climate change is a semitruck barreling right at them. The deniers are the drivers who refuses to incovenience themselves by braking.

It's not a truck barreling at anyone. According to the IPCC, the worst case scenario is that climate change will reduce global GDP by 10% by 2100. Of course it will also grow about 8-15x in that timeframe. So it's the difference between global GDP growing 10x or 9x over the next 80 years.

edit - your analogy is confusing. Is climate change the truck and the deniers the driver? And also the ones the truck is barreling forward to?

 

[longview]

Correct, we do NOT know exactly how the climate will ultimately respond to human activity, but we do know that it IS responding, and as such it is better to prepare to mitigate the damage now, rather than later. Frankly, the fact that we don't know exactly what's going to happen should be more worrying, not less.

That the climate responds to changes, does not imply that the changes will be enough to change much of anything.
we were already in a warming climate, and historically warmer is better.

 

[cabse5]

It doesn't need to have an enormously large effect. When the scale is an entire planet, even small changes can have disproportionately large impacts.

Ah no. The entire greenhouse gases in earth's 'sphere consist of approx. 95% water vapor, approx. 5% of CO2, some methane and...

 

[Irredentist]

That the climate responds to changes, does not imply that the changes will be enough to change much of anything.
we were already in a warming climate, and historically warmer is better.

I'm not so sure about that. Take a look at countries in temperate climates, versus countries in the tropics. Which ones are doing better?

 

[Irredentist]

Ah no. The entire greenhouse gases in earth's 'sphere consist of approx. 95% water vapor approx. 5% of CO2 some methane and...

Do you really think that 5% of all the greenhouse gasses on the ENTIRE PLANET is an insignificant quantity? I urge you to rethink that.

 

[cabse5]

Do you really think that 5% of all the greenhouse gasses on the ENTIRE PLANET is an insignificant quantity? I urge you to rethink that.

Do you think climate change is one of the most important crises to overcome in our time? If water vapor is 95% of all greenhouse gases and CO2 is 5% of all greenhouse gases in the 'sphere, I'd be concentrating on water vapor, CO2 and methane to reduce the affects of climate change.

 

[longview]

I'm not so sure about that. Take a look at countries in temperate climates, versus countries in the tropics. Which ones are doing better?

I am talking about historically, civilization advanced in the warmer periods.

 

[Irredentist]

I am talking about historically, civilization advanced in the warmer periods.

That is not a good argument for warming the climate now. How is raising the temperature going to advance our civilization?

 

[longview]

That is not a good argument for warming the climate now. How is raising the temperature going to advance our civilization?

It is not going to hurt us not more than the Roman warm period did.
Again the real problem is energy, not CO2.

 

[Irredentist]

Do you think climate change is one of the most important crises to overcome in our time? If water vapor is 95% of all greenhouse gases and CO2 is 5% of all greenhouse gases in the 'sphere, I'd be concentrating on water vapor, CO2 and methane to reduce the affects of climate change.

Water vapor is supposed to be in the atmosphere, and so is carbon dioxide. But not too much, and that is why people are working to limit it.

 

[longview]

Ah no. The entire greenhouse gases in earth's 'sphere consist of approx. 95% water vapor, approx. 5% of CO2, some methane and...

I think we are at ~.04% CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[longview]

Water vapor is supposed to be in the atmosphere, and so is carbon dioxide. But not too much, and that is why people are working to limit it.

I am not sure there is any correct level of CO2, plants die at below 200 ppm or so and do very well up to about 2000 ppm.

 

[trouble13]

It's not a whataboutism at all, it's a simple question. Why are you unable to answer? What sacrifices are conservatives making in their protests such as those against abortion and gay marriage? YOU made the claim that somehow sacrificing has to be made for a protest to be valid.

Your question would be valid if we were talking about either of those things but we are not despite your attempt to deflect to those subjects.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[ataraxia]

Greta is a useful idiot, being manipulated by scumbags whose only interest in AGW is money.

The American public, specifically the republican party portion of it, is the only useful idiot being manipulated by big oil to deny science. No one else in the world is that stupid.

”One problematic trend of the US media has been the suggestion that substantive disagreement exists within the international scientific community as to the reality of anthropogenic climate change; however, this concept is false...Quite relative to this state of affairs is the fact that powerful forces within society combine to distract both the US public and policy-makers from this reality. There is no question that certain business sectors benefit from this political impasse, the contours of which are most discernible when influential individuals publicly dispute the scientific consensus on climate change—such as when Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma (2004, S11292), on the floor of the Senate, proclaimed (as he also had in 2003) that ‘Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people’. A number of large corporations that profit substantially from fossil fuel consumption, such as ExxonMobil,4 provide financial support to their political allies in an effort to undermine public trust in climate science.”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.2033&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The systematic campaign of public misinformation from big oil is no different than the systematic campaign of misinformation and confusion from big tobacco when the smoking/cancer links were being reported. In fact, many of the same “scientists” have been recruited for both campaigns.

 

[ataraxia]

I wouldn’t be surprised if some people posting here were not being paid by the fossil fuel industry.

 

[PirateMk1]

The American public, specifically the republican party portion of it, is the only useful idiot being manipulated by big oil to deny science. No one else in the world is that stupid.



The systematic campaign of public misinformation from big oil is no different than the systematic campaign of misinformation and confusion from big tobacco when the smoking/cancer links were being reported. In fact, many of the same “scientists” have been recruited for both campaigns.

I call bull****. You say almost every scientist agrees with AGW, then provide the proof. Hell I'd like to just the climate wonks. You cant prove it because it dont exist. Good luck trying though.