look like a homosexual cowboy with downs
greta thunberg

Done about what? There is no climate crisis. There is no melting Arctic circle. There is no rising ocean. The polar bears are not disappearing. I've been trying to educate people about this global warming nonsense since 1989. Before that, the lefties were sure acid rain and the ozone hole were going to kill us. Before that, it was a new ice age. It's always something with environmentalists because they are marxists in disguise. Earth Day and all of that nonsense came from the Vietnam war protest movement, which was funded by the Soviets. We know this from defectors. The people at the top, organizing the antiwar movement, were dedicated marxists. After the war, many just went into the environmental movement, where they could continue their rabble rousing. In fact, these old marxists are now positively giddy at the thought that they've now found an issue that they think they can incite the masses and be used to destroy capitalism.

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article...ransformation/

Apart from the fact you sound like you regularly post in conspiracy forums, making out that solutions to climate change are somehow communist is retarded.

I'm sure Tesla, the maker of electric cars is more free market capitalist than GM the socialist car manufacture that purely exists due to massive government bailouts.

In fact I and a lot of people fully believe its innovation in the free market that will create the solutions we need in the end.

So let me get this straight;
You believe that climate change is a myth created to destroy capitalism, and that the entirety of our current scientific data supporting global climate change is a marxist ploy.

You also linked us to a study that you alleged supported your point that the majority of scientistsare not in agreementwith climate change, but in fact,showed that the majority of scientist attribute at least 60-75% of climate change to human interference.

So you're back pedalling for starters.

And you're making some pretty incredible claims for a guy who doesn't have the data to support them

And a different 77 scientists will give a different result.

There's also a difference between man-made and significantly impacted by man.

There was once scientific consensus that you could determine all manner of mental traits of a person just by examining the shape of their skull. This was called phrenology. If you had surveyed 77 phrenologists in 1810, they would have told you there was at least 97% consensus that phrenology was an accurate diagnostic tool.

Do you also believe that the Earth is flat?


ITT your track record for credibility and supporting your argument is 0 and 3.This is hilariously non sequitur.

Typical miscer. Government control of industry in the name of protecting the climate is pretty much a marxist's wet dream.

Climate change may or may not be happening. It's a natural process outside of human control. It's not good nor bad, it just is.

Man-made climate change is what I don't think is proven, nor do I think the data supports. It's this angle that the marxists have seized upon. If you can label CO2 an environmental pollutant, you can justify a whole lot of awful public policies in the name of limiting our emissions of CO2. The marxists LOVE this idea. Genocide can now be justified as protecting the climate (because humans emit CO2). Shuttering entire industries can be justified in the name of protecting the climate. etc. They LOVE that kind of control over people.

When you really look at the arguments about CO2 and global warming, they fall apart. The amounts of CO2 emitted by man are miniscule when measured as ppm increases in the levels in the atmosphere. I've looked at the data. We've had these arguments on the misc before. I just get tired of going round and round with true believers (like yourself) who have likely been taught since you were very young that man-made climate change was real. If you are curious, search my history for old climate change threads. Plenty of links in those old posts.

Here's what I think we need to have answers for BEFORE we start ruining economies in the name of saving the climate.

1. Is climate change happening?
2. If yes, is it a good thing or a bad thing?
3. If it's a bad thing, is man responsible?
4. If man is responsible, can we fix it?
5. If we can fix it, what's the overall cost?
6. Is the cost worth the effort?
7. If it's not worth the effort, what are the consequences?
8. Are the consequences tolerable?

People on your side of the debate have jumped ahead to question 6), whereas my side is still at question 1) or 2). Rather than slowing down and waiting for true scientific confirmation (and not just extrapolations made from computer models), you're insisting that we don't get a voice (you invented the term denier just for this reason) and that you be trusted to enact 6).

Well, pardon me...but I don't trust your motives.

I find that people who jump to ad hominem attacks are usually unsure that they can win an argument otherwise.

Leftists in Europe are already using the phrase "climate refugees" to justify hundreds of millions of Africans and Arabs going to Europe over the next few decades.

Who the hell cares?

She's a nobody who's good for opportunistic politicians looking for a good photo-op and some positive PR. She'll be out of the news cycle in a matter a week or two if not a few days.

Why do people get so caught up in the inconsequential minutia of politics and public affairs? The right loves to call the left sensitive cry babies, but they're no less guilty of bitching about stupid stuff that doesn't matter.

People need to stop looking for petty things to make them mad and just live their lives.

You really can't dismiss marxist involvement in climate change as conspiracy theory when they are leaving a paper trail...https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...for-destroyin/

Shhhhhhhhh! ...or you'll get accused of believing in a flat Earth!

Living in the UK is too cold. If a few million people have to drown in melted ice for us to have good weather for a change, I'm willing to risk it.

You're right, generally speaking, this is the case. I can agree with you on that. However, my intentions were to point out how very out there your claims come off. I mean you literally said four things back to back that were all erroneous.

Just FYI you literally did the same thing right here:So this is indeed, much closer to a dialogue.

And that's fine, if you're willing to have a genuine dialogue, let's have it. You believe that the entirety of global climate change has been fabricated as a result of a marxist attempt to overthrow capitalism and that it, generally, does not exist. This is what I have gathered from the majority of what you have posted.

Certainly, there are more farfetched conspiracies out there.

On the other hand, I believe that humans have interfered with the natural ecosystem, and as a result the climate has been affected adversely by man's actions.

We are, actually experiencing the highest levels of carbon PPM in recorded history. This is fact, and you can look it up. We are currently sitting somewhere between 410-420 PPM. So I do not know where you are getting your data from, but we are way higher than we have ever been in years prior.

That being said, carbon is a greenhouse gas and does affect the temperature.

How is it hard to believe that introducing emissions to the environmentthat were not there prior to us existing--and currently existing at a higher ratewould affect the environment?

There have beenplenty of examplesin recent history of man accidentally introducing something to an environment and it causing very serious complications even though the change seemed minor. Take for example, man accidentally introducing an invasive species to an environment, and how the environment changes to react. This is only small scale.

Deviations from the norm in our ecosystem can usually spell danger, if a species cannot adapt in time.

Here's the thing; we cannot currently find any habitable planets like Earth right? If you think about it, we literally do not have the means to travel to any of them even if we found them. So that means we do have to be cognizant of what we do to the Earth, right?

That being said, there are better solutions that do not involve taxes.This is an opinion piece, authored by Nicolas Loris who believes in climate change and proposes that discussiondoes indeed need to be had.

If you read up on him, you would find that he would likely agree with much of what I have said.

I don't believe in an increase in taxes, I don't believe that an increase in taxes will actually help. I believe other measures should be taken, like incentivizing types of energy and incentiving carbon emission reduction.

There are plenty of solutions out there that aren't tax-related.

What's never mentioned is that the "normal" levels for CO2 prior to the industrial revolution were 280 ppm, although much higher levels existed before human civilization.

What's also not mentioned is that the data we have for this "rising" period has also been extensively massaged to confirm the CO2 theory of climate change using the computer models. This runs contrary to the scientific method.

https://realclimatescience.com/2016/...ata-tampering/

What's also not mentioned is the dishonesty involved in the characterization of CO2 as an environmental pollutant, rather than a normal and natural part of the complicated systems that affect life on this planet.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/...rom-the-start/

The debate is far from settled and the idea that a consensus exists and we should therefore be compelled to drastic action is one that I reject.

You climate change retards don't realize that life is tough, the weak perish and the strong survive. Even if the climate changes in a major way life will adapt. We all die in the end.

How do people still argue against climate change still lmaooo probably also think vaccines give autism

Vaccines can have devastating side effects.

Miscinformed I can't reply fully without getting sent to an error page - common problem these days on the misc - no matter how many times I edit it.

So... I just hope that people who read your post look further into the issue...

https://www.politifact.com/virginia/...believe-human/

The 97% figure is on the higher end of meta studies that have looked into climate change - and admittedly it's a disputed meta study.

However, every meta study summary I've seen, has concluded that the majority consensus is that it's man made.

Also you strawmanned me. I never argued that we should defer judgement to the majority inanyfield.

Earth has always fluctuated in temperature, at some point this entire earth was covered in ice for gods sake. Show me the proof that we have a direct influence on the Earths temperature

2019 and people still believe in man made climate change? sad.

Politifact is a fake news operation. Like Snopes and factcheck.org, it's run by leftists and funded by leftists.

I didn't mean to strawman you. I thought you jumped in when I called the 97% claim fake news. You actually jumped in to ask if I play with Barbies, before asserting that revising the 97% claim to a simple majority claim still equals consensus.

I'm skeptical by nature. It's what made me a good engineer. I didn't believe in the completeness of solution to a problem until somebody could defend it against criticism and corner cases. Believers in man made climate change are not interested in defending their "science". They simply want to shut down their critics ability to speak (e.g., Mann at Penn State). That's a huge red flag. Anybody who doesn't feel the same way has questionable motives to me. Because this topic has been so politicized by the left (Kerry, Gore, etc.), I don't think anyone on the political left can be trusted with their research. There are trillions of dollars at stake for the "carbon credit & taxation crowd" and that kind of money can corrupt anything, including science. Look at all the taxpayer dollars wasted by Obama on green energy companies with subsidies and grants that went out of business as soon as the government money dried up. Every industry that stands to benefit from government interference in the economy (e.g. solar, batteries, nuclear, etc.) on behalf of protecting the climate should be suspect too. There is just too much money on the table to disregard the influence of that money.

Yeah except that it wasn't supported by the data and those people weren't scientists in the modern sense.

Sadly, my country isnt in a much better state. Liberalism is a mental disorder and it's destroying the entire west.

Interesting fact, back before WWII, the Daily Mail supported Nazis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_...ort_of_fascism

They haven't changed much. They've lost lots of libel lawsuits, and several times been caught outright fabricating aspects of news stories to create more scandal and drama. They're the ideal newspaper for the grumpy old man yelling at clouds.

Correct. The Social Justice Warrior and the Conservative Justice Warrior doing their recruit courses both take lessons in butthurt.

Who is to say that 100 years from now we won't look back and laugh about how simplistic and wrong the climate models are that are currently in use?

https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models

This is actually not true. As I have said before, we are currently experiencing the highest carbon ppm in history.
Spoiler!

But theyhavebeen at high levels before--this is just the highest point they have ever been. We are seated between 410-420 ppm currently.Okay, so let's just delve into something for a moment; temperature is a part of the equation, but it goes a little deeper.

Somewhere around 2005, the first category 5 hurricane to make landfall in the US occurred. In the 10 years preceeding this, atlantic hurricanes actually occurred more frequently than average. And in 2017, Hurricane Irma was the next category 5 to make landfall.

If you want any evidence of an increased rate of hurricane occurances, take a look at this:

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp

In the late 1800's we see a numbers in the low single digits. In the early 2000's until more recently, we begin to see numbers in the high single digits and low doubles. That's just on the North Atlantic side. We can look at the Eastern Pacific and see a similar upward trend (though reaching the high 30's from single digits in recent times), as well as in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. There is a distinct upward trend. This coincides with our industrial revolution and modern outputs.

I think that you are much more politically biased on this than I am, and while you attempt to assert that you are not... You are also the only person who has brought up a political ideology to the forefront of this conversation.

It's because of this, that we need to address your bias. You can't have a discussion about fact, and then bring political ideology into it. Political ideology is opinion, and preference. It is not fact. The amount of hurricanes that occur, the changes in climate, etc, these are all facts. These are all things that must be evaluated on merit.

If I present data to you, you must evaluate the data on quality and if bias must be addressed, it must be done in an objective matter. But your stance is not objective, and it is heavily biased.

I'm not asking you to change your ideology, or political stance. But we have to address that bias which permeates your reasoning.

I cannot state that I did not initially let my bias steer the conversation, because my stance is such that I do believe in climate change. And so we will address that now; currently the majority consensus in the scinetific community is such that climate change is an important and relevant issue. If one is to deny this, and assert that claim, the burden of proof would have to fall to them. Because of this, certain things that have been said in this thread are very "against the grain" and must be evidenced or considered erroneous.

There are several claims, and statements you have made that I've evidenced as false, including the one outlined about. I have no doubt that you are well written. I have less doubt that you are well intentioned.

I think most people are well intentioned. But the question then becomes; does your political bias interfere with your pragmatic ability?

OMG this thread is still going? punch her in the gabber already m8