We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So

[watsup]

Now prove that most of that precipitation increases was caused by the antropogenic changes, rather than natural. That this isn't another natural cycle.

Prove its not.

 

[watsup]

Who cares?

Why are all changed due to mans influence? There are natural cycles. Prove the cause of it.

Prove it's not caused by man's influence.

 

[longview]

Prove its not.

The burden is on those saying something is different, not those saying it is part of a normal cycle!

 

[watsup]

Leftists are not very bright. They are unable to distinguish between climate and pollution. They also think carbon dioxide is the same thing as carbon monoxide, or at least they are unable to determine the difference between the two. The only true "emergency" here are the leftist's need for an education.

No one has made such claims. Why do you always insist on posting clear falsehoods.

 

[watsup]

I read his post, and the only one who is confused here is you. Pollution is not climate. It isn't weather either. But because you lack the education to distinguish the difference between the two, you think they are one and the same. Here is a clue since you are clearly missing one: They are not the same, not even remotely.

Furthermore, anti-American leftist filth have been pushing first Global Cooling during the 1970s, and then Global Warming during the 1980s, and Climate Change since 1990, and have always been flat out wrong about every prediction ever made. Even when you had 100% consensus that the Holocene Interglacial period had come to an abrupt end by all 46 scientists with the National Science Foundation, you were flat-out wrong and were singing a completely different tune by 1979.

Leftists are defined by their hypocrisy.

View attachment 67329126
March, 1973

So much for your reliance on "scientific consensus." It doesn't mean diddly-squat, and never did. Just another leftist lie.

How exactly is human-produced CO2 not polluting the atmosphere by making it warmer than what would be naturally caused?

 

[watsup]

I've seen enough science to the contrary that I tend to reject alarmism out of hand as an appeal to emotion to try and elicit a rash reaction.

Basically people become more shrill as fewer and fewer people listen to them. Not based on how eminent a threat is.

Hurricanes have always hit Florida effect of life on the Gulf Coast. I've lived through more than one cold snap and Texas and more than one flood in Texas. These events don't seem to be happening with any more frequency

So I'm going to dismiss the alarmism and most people are because they can observe these things too.

I'm going to dimiss right wing deniers because most people can understand the long-term threat of human-produced CO2 to cause increased extreme weather events.

 

[Logical1]

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We're Going to Say So

It’s time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed

www.scientificamerican.com

An emergency is a serious situation that requires immediate action. When someone calls 911 because they can’t breathe, that’s an emergency. When someone stumbles on the sidewalk because their chest is pounding and their lips are turning blue, that’s an emergency. Both people require help right away. Multiply those individuals by millions of people who have similar symptoms, and it constitutes the biggest global health emergency in a century: the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now consider the following scenarios: A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas. These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change.

Given the circumstances, Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below.

This idea is not a journalistic fancy. We are on solid scientific ground. In January Scientific American published an article about a study entitled “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” At the time, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action. As of April 9 another 2,100 had signed on. As our article said, “the adverse effects of climate change are much more severe than expected and now threaten both the biosphere and humanity.... Every effort must be made to reduce emissions and increase removal of atmospheric carbon in order to restore the melting Arctic and end the deadly cycle of damage that the current climate is delivering.” Our article also noted that as of January, “1,859 jurisdictions in 33 countries have issued climate emergency declarations covering more than 820 million people.”

Emergency?????????????? What do you think can be done about it. Hard math proves that man made CO2 yearly amounts to 6 parts in a million in the total atmosphere. That means man made global warming is a lie. So where do you go now to fix global warming.

 

[watsup]

I read his post, and the only one who is confused here is you. Pollution is not climate. It isn't weather either. But because you lack the education to distinguish the difference between the two, you think they are one and the same. Here is a clue since you are clearly missing one: They are not the same, not even remotely.

Furthermore, anti-American leftist filth have been pushing first Global Cooling during the 1970s, and then Global Warming during the 1980s, and Climate Change since 1990, and have always been flat out wrong about every prediction ever made. Even when you had 100% consensus that the Holocene Interglacial period had come to an abrupt end by all 46 scientists with the National Science Foundation, you were flat-out wrong and were singing a completely different tune by 1979.

Leftists are defined by their hypocrisy.

View attachment 67329126
March, 1973

So much for your reliance on "scientific consensus." It doesn't mean diddly-squat, and never did. Just another leftist lie.

Forty-six scientists are hardly a "consensus" when compared to the worldwide community of climate scientists whose research and data show that human-produced CO2 is definitely warming the atmosphere.

 

[longview]

I'm going to dimiss right wing deniers because most people can understand the long-term threat of human-produced CO2 to cause increased extreme weather events.

We have no evidence that the weather is much different than past weather, much less extreme in any way.
We do have better reporting of global weather events.

 

[watsup]

Emergency?????????????? What do you think can be done about it. Hard math proves that man made CO2 yearly amounts to 6 parts in a million in the total atmosphere. That means man made global warming is a lie. So where do you go now to fix global warming.

The only "lie" is the one you repeat ad nauseum with every single post you make.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I've pointed out in previous posts on this thread that many 'scientists' decried that the earth was flat and many 'scientists' decried that the earth was the center of the universe...Many 'scientists' have also decried that too much CO2 in the 'sphere causes imminent climate change catastrophe (the conspiracy theory which states that too much CO2 in the 'sphere causes imminent climate change catastrophe).

The 2 things that the climate change catastrophe conspiracy theory has in common with the flat earth theory and the earth as the center of the universe theory is that:
(1) Many 'scientists' decried the theories to be true.
(2) There was no scientific evidence to back up any of the theories.

Are you, now, saying that since many 'scientists' decried the earth was the center of the universe and many 'scientists' decried the earth was flat we should also take the flat and center of the universe theories seriously?
Like I posted earlier, scientific evidence is way more important than consensus among scientists. For example, the consensus of scientists before Einstein came upon the scene was that the 'ether' was real and facilitated movement of particles.

You can’t of course pick and choose what scientific theory you want to believe based on that scientists have been wrong before. Instead it just means that you have to follow modern scientific theory of always challenging and improving scientific theories and finding new evidence for or against scientific theories. There you also have to objectively look at the evidence and the results of scientific studies. There it is now overwhelming evidence for manmade global warming.

“The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95% probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. Carbon dioxide from human activity is increasing more than 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.”

Evidence - NASA Science

Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...

climate.nasa.gov

Also if the catholic church had counterfactually changed their opinion and started to believe in heliocentrism. Then Gailelio would of course have been supported by the church and his theories would have been spread by the catholic church. While after eight years with Bush as president and soon after that ten years there Republican controlled either the Senate and/or the House with also Republicans controlling the White House for the last four years. The result is that no alternative theory to the urgent need for action on manmade global warming emerged and federal agencies instead continued to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

There it also not only Republican climate deniers that have not been able to disprove the urgent need for action. That you also for example have Australian federal agencies that continue to acknowledge the devastating effects of climate change. Even with federal politicians that want to spend billions of dollars propping up the coal industry.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...s-by-22-a-year-over-past-20-years-report-says

Adani mine would be 'unviable' without $4.4bn in subsidies, report finds

Exclusive: Carmichael mine set to receive subsidies, favourable deals and tax concessions over 30 years

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lord of Planar]

Prove it's not caused by man's influence.

Prove its not.

Just look at the history of precipitation. There is nothing outside of normal cycles and normal extremes.

 

[Glitch]

As for the 1970's, well, you are clearly not a scientist either. If you were you'd know that even in the 1970's peer reviewed science articles predicting WARMING outnumbered those predicting cooling almost 6:1 (Peterson 2008).

We know that to be a deliberate lie. Not a single scientist was talking about Global Warming until 1979. Then they completely reversed their prior consensus and adopted a new one. Only to do the exact same thing again in 1989 by calling it Climate Change instead of Global Warming.

You leftists thought you can fool everyone that the planet was cooling, and began spending billions to redistribute wealth on that lie. Then when busted with actually data you leftists completely changed your tune in 1979 and started another lie calling it Global Warming for the very first time. When that was always proven to be complete BS by actual data you leftists decided to cover all your bases by calling it Climate Change by 1989.

So now it doesn't matter what the climate does, or doesn't do, you leftists can blame humans for all climate. Even though the actual data still calls you leftists liars. That doesn't seem to phase leftists. Undoubtedly because leftists are not smart enough to comprehend. You should have gotten an education instead of that leftist indoctrination.

You are out of options now. You can't call it anything else. And you still can't show any correlation between humanity and the climate. Like I said, leftists are not very bright as you repeatedly demonstrate.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No one has made such claims. Why do you always insist on posting clear falsehoods.

Well, excuse me, but I have to agree with him.

My life long experience with leftists is they see what they consider a problem, and want to fix it. They even get all authoritarian about it.

They have good hearts generally and good intentions, but.... They don't consider all the long term results that take place when they get their changes implemented. Usually, things end up worse than they started.

 

[Lord of Planar]

How exactly is human-produced CO2 not polluting the atmosphere by making it warmer than what would be naturally caused?

Can you prove it's making it warmer?

The science says it reduces the escape of IR away from the earth. That's all we really know. There are both positive and negative secondary effects from this action.

Did you know it is possible that the negative secondary effects outweigh the positive ones? Seriously. It is unlikely, but possible that added CO2 actually causes cooling. Now I don't take this position, but to deny that possibility is to be a denier of science!

Thing is, the negative secondary effects most likely reduce the CO2 warming considerable.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm going to dimiss right wing deniers because most people can understand the long-term threat of human-produced CO2 to cause increased extreme weather events.

Up.

You deny science due to your indoctrination.

Got it!

 

[Glitch]

I've pointed out in previous posts on this thread that many 'scientists' decried that the earth was flat and many 'scientists' decried that the earth was the center of the universe...

No scientist has ever called the Earth flat or that the Earth was ever the center of anything. You are confusing religious belief with science. They are not the same.

Do not confused uneducated fools with scientists.

Consensus in science is pretty meaningless. All it really means is that more scientists agree with a theory than disagree. Scientific consensus is often wrong, and has been known to change almost overnight.

For example, by 1921 there was a 100% consensus among astronomers and astrophysicists that the Milky Way galaxy was the entire scope of the universe. Nothing else existed outside of the Milky Way galaxy. Then in 1922 Edwin Hubble used red-shift to determine that the Andromeda nebula was actually another galaxy 2.5 million light years away. By 1928 the prior consensus that the Milky Way was the entire universe was completely destroyed.

Another example is the Big Bang theory. History is replete with examples of scientific consensus being completely blown out of the water as a result of new evidence. The fact of the matter is that science gets it wrong more often than they get something right, but we learn from those mistakes.

 

[Ren]

Just showing your point about environmentalist tears and how we’ve never had a crisis in 200 years

You're showing YOUR point about environmentalist tears which is irrelevant to the op.

Show me the emergency in climate change.

Show me a video of the sun punching through a weakened part of the ozone and cooking a city.

Show me a massive wall of water wiping out New York.

You people are constantly barking about science and evidence but you're always coming up dry when it's time to deliver actual proof.

 

[watsup]

Well, excuse me, but I have to agree with him.

My life long experience with leftists is they see what they consider a problem, and want to fix it. They even get all authoritarian about it.

They have good hearts generally and good intentions, but.... They don't consider all the long term results that take place when they get their changes implemented. Usually, things end up worse than they started.

Denier talking point seconded by another denier.

 

[watsup]

Just look at the history of precipitation. There is nothing outside of normal cycles and normal extremes.

Prove it.

 

[watsup]

Up.

You deny science due to your indoctrination.

Got it!

Once again: psychological projection.

 

[istodolez]

You're showing YOUR point about environmentalist tears which is irrelevant to the op.

Show me the emergency in climate change.

Show me a video of the sun punching through a weakened part of the ozone and cooking a city.

Show me a massive wall of water wiping out New York.

You people are constantly barking about science and evidence but you're always coming up dry when it's time to deliver actual proof.

Why do you buy insurance? Just curious.

Why do you have smoke detectors in your home?

Why do you look both ways before crossing the street?

(BTW: I didn't bring up "environmentalist tears" to begin with! But I understand "details" and "technicalities" probably don't matter to the more "shallow" thinker.. )

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why do you buy insurance? Just curious.

Why do you have smoke detectors in your home?

Why do you look both ways before crossing the street?

(BTW: I didn't bring up "environmentalist tears" to begin with! But I understand "details" and "technicalities" probably don't matter to the more "shallow" thinker.. )

Once again. A smoke detector is like $20/mo. House insurance, car insurance, etc. a but more money, but in most people's budget.

The money they want to spend on climate change is well over $10,000 per tax payer.

Why don;t you lefties just cover the half of us who don't want to pay for something that will not likely make a difference. Go ahead, white them a check for $20,000.

 

[istodolez]

Once again. A smoke detector is like $20/mo. House insurance, car insurance, etc. a but more money, but in most people's budget.

The money they want to spend on climate change is well over $10,000 per tax payer.

Why don;t you lefties just cover the half of us who don't want to pay for something that will not likely make a difference. Go ahead, white them a check for $20,000.

It could have been less, but we had to spend 40 years debating with scientific illiterates who think their 2 year degree from Devry and a working copy of Excel was all they
needed to take down all of science.

So, you only have ...well, you-know-who to blame.

 

[istodolez]

We know that to be a deliberate lie. Not a single scientist was talking about Global Warming until 1979. Then they completely reversed their prior consensus and adopted a new one. Only to do the exact same thing again in 1989 by calling it Climate Change instead of Global Warming.

You leftists thought you can fool everyone that the planet was cooling, and began spending billions to redistribute wealth on that lie. Then when busted with actually data you leftists completely changed your tune in 1979 and started another lie calling it Global Warming for the very first time. When that was always proven to be complete BS by actual data you leftists decided to cover all your bases by calling it Climate Change by 1989.

So now it doesn't matter what the climate does, or doesn't do, you leftists can blame humans for all climate. Even though the actual data still calls you leftists liars. That doesn't seem to phase leftists. Undoubtedly because leftists are not smart enough to comprehend. You should have gotten an education instead of that leftist indoctrination.

You are out of options now. You can't call it anything else. And you still can't show any correlation between humanity and the climate. Like I said, leftists are not very bright as you repeatedly demonstrate.

Have you ever heard of Roger Revelle? I didn't think so. He was talking about our possible issues with CO2 and climate as far back as the late 1950's.

In fact the original concept of AGW dates back to 1898.

You DO realize you were debating against an actual record of the events in the 1960's-1970's, right? That's why I put a HYPERLINK in the original post. But I don't expect you could read it couldja?

Big words? Or did you now know how hyperlinks work? Either way...you aren't impressing anyone.