Climate Change...Earth Orbit?

[KingOrfeo]

There is no proof it's man caused.

There is proof that it is caused by increasing CO2 in the air resulting from human industrial activity going back to the start of the Industrial Revolution.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Comshaw]

I think you're out of your mind. As I have pointed out in the past, the existence of Man and all of his works represent but a small spark of light along the billions of years of the long dark cataclysmic chronology of the history of the Earth. There's nothing the puny efforts of man can do to destroy the planet, the idea is political crap formulated by masterminds who want to manage you and everything else in the world. Civilizations rise and fall, they all polluted their local environments, they rise up and turn to dust. Even up to the 19th Century you could smell London from twenty miles away. People wore platforms on the their shoes to keep from walking in the shit and offal that filled the city streets. The Thames was a moving horizontal column of shit, yet today one couldn't imagine how things were in those days. Man moves on, the Earth in its natural resilience moves on as well. Nothing Man does or will do is going to destroy the Earth.

You're absolutely right in your assertion that man isn't going to destroy this planet. HOWEVER, we can and will at the rate we're going, change the parameters for human life. The earth will regenerate, recycle and heal, but we may not be part of that equation when it does. It's happened before, it will happen again. If we don't take steps to protect ourselves, we will be the ones going extinct. Human life, in terms of geologic time, can be measured in seconds. We can and are in the process of destroying what we need to survive. How many humans can the earth hold and provide for? Will we breed ourselves out of existence? If you're blind or stupid enough to insist the world population has no effect on the environment, then I pity and some what envy your blindness to reality. Thankfully we have at least some people who have enough vision and foresight to look at the reality of the situation.

http://one-simple-idea.com/WorldPopulation.jpg



Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

Wouldn't we make that claim if all of a sudden we woke up in 18th Century England?

This is the problem. you're thinking in terms of single human life spans rather then the living span of the human species.


Comshaw

 

[Que]

~snip~
My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty

~snip~

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Exactly. The absolute fervor that the faithful worship this religion tells you all that you need to know.

Example:

We need to learn to live with the change we've already had. Nothing we can do will make it cool back down in our lifetimes. All we can hope for now is that it won't get much worse.

As if the earth is already somehow inhospitable to humans. As if humans are not capable of adapting to temperature variance, especially the temperature change we have not yet seen, described as "the change we have already had."

MAYBE 1/2 inch of ocean rise and MAYBE 1/3 of a degree.

You point out that the trend should be cooling towards it actually being inhospitable to humans. The response is "SEE!!! GLOBAL WARMING!" Fine, it is possible. If so would not we WANT global warming if cyclically we are headed to an ice age?

 

[phrodeau]

Here's one who isn't in the "consensus"


Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

PATRICK MOORE
Dr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies

Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas.

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

The rest here:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

Yes, lies get published all the time, and you can c&p them over and over again. But they'll never magically become truths.

 

[phrodeau]

Exactly. The absolute fervor that the faithful worship this religion tells you all that you need to know.

Example:



As if the earth is already somehow inhospitable to humans. As if humans are not capable of adapting to temperature variance, especially the temperature change we have not yet seen, described as "the change we have already had."

MAYBE 1/2 inch of ocean rise and MAYBE 1/3 of a degree.

You point out that the trend should be cooling towards it actually being inhospitable to humans. The response is "SEE!!! GLOBAL WARMING!" Fine, it is possible. If so would not we WANT global warming if cyclically we are headed to an ice age?

So you're in the "hope it won't get much worse" camp, too.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Here's one who isn't in the "consensus"


Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

PATRICK MOORE
Dr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies

Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas.

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

The rest here:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

He's not a climate scientist.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

He's not a climate scientist.

Not only that...
PhD in Ecology (1974), B.Sc. in Forest Biology


Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.
While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he "saw the light" but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.

Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who's Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.

Moore's claims run from the exaggerated to the outrageous to the downright false, including that "clear-cutting is good for forests" and Three Mile Island was actually "a success story" because the radiation from the partially melted core was contained. That is akin to saying "my car crash was a success because I only cracked my skull and didn't die."

By exploiting his former ties to Greenpeace, Moore portrays himself as a prodigal son who has seen the error of his ways. Unfortunately, the media - especially conservative media - give him a platform for his views, and often do so without mentioning the fact that he is a paid spokesperson for polluting companies.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Que]

How is a Doctorate in Ecology less than appropriate for studying how man which is a biological organism, interacts with all of the other aspects of his environment?

 

[KingOrfeo]

I didn't say increased population has no effect. What happens when man literally fucks himself out of his resources, like say in Ethiopia? He dies in huge numbers. Well that is, until we send them food and encourage them to do the same thing all over again. The point is, nature itself will control over population of man just like it does every other species.

Yes, it does.

Sometimes, the species goes extinct in the process.

Crushing the American economy with comically useless environmental policies, that have no basis in reality, will do zero to alleviate environmental problems in the most polluted places on earth in China, India, and Russia.

It will at least help to prevent or postpone the damage ACC would do to those countries.

 

[KingOrfeo]

How is a Doctorate in Ecology less than appropriate for studying how man which is a biological organism, interacts with all of the other aspects of his environment?

Because ecology is not climatology.

 

[phrodeau]

How is a Doctorate in Ecology less than appropriate for studying how man which is a biological organism, interacts with all of the other aspects of his environment?

Did he offer any data to support his statements?

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Without a leftist agenda behind it, the medicine of such a doctorate is considered weak among the pagan tribes of the environmental movement.

It's actually more like this.

An argument from authority (also appeal to authority, argumentum ad verecundiam[2] and argumentum ab auctoritate), when correctly applied, can be a valid and sometimes essential part of an argument that requests judgement or input from a qualified or expert source. The operation of the common law would be impossible without it, for example.

Frequently, however, it is a logical fallacy consisting of an appeal to authority, but on a topic outside of the authority's expertise[3] or on a topic on which the authority is not disinterested (aka. the authority is biased). Almost any subject has an authority on every side of the argument, even where there is generally agreed to be no argument.[4]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Did he offer any data to support his statements?

Does anecdata count?

 

[FGB]

Again, it is. Unless you can find an instance where science was wrong.

Science is never wrong, it gets a re-calibration or a revised theory to roll on.

It is ever changing to fit the facts as is known in whatever present day it happens to be.

But is never out and out wrong.

Well, maybe the flat earth thing and the sun revolving around the earth but...

 

[KingOrfeo]

The way my HS physics teacher explained it, Newton was not wrong; Newton's physics is a good approximation of reality, and Einstein's physics is a better approximation. That's how science works.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Science is never wrong, it gets a re-calibration or a revised theory to roll on.

It is ever changing to fit the facts as is known in whatever present day it happens to be.

But is never out and out wrong.

Well, maybe the flat earth thing and the sun revolving around the earth but...

That was the Bible and your Theocon buddies who held it as law of the land........not science. Science put it's cock on the block challenging the Churches long held assumption that Earth was flat and center of the universe.

Which is incredible considering not much earlier the church was burning scientist for witchcraft because they came up with A/C, antibiotics and all sorts of other clever things.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

California has a year of water left.

It will be funny (not in the ha-ha way) when the dopes point to a puddle a year from now and say "See California has water!".

 

[BotanyBoy]

California has a year of water left.

That's being optimistic.......If we don't get any more rain I'd be shocked if this wasn't the year it starts actually effecting the rest of the country. As in Thanksgiving dinner is going to whoop the fuck up on some pocket books this fall and the poor are doing without.

I'm betting by the end of July Trinity/Shasta/Orville are all tapped and panic down south will set in about mid August after the rest of the tiny reservoirs vanish in the blink of an eye.

It will be funny (not in the ha-ha way) when the dopes point to a puddle a year from now and say "See California has water!".

Seriously......it will be sad in a lot of ways.

It WILL be LuLZ funny watching SoCal's shit the bed though.....they've been squandering the rest of the states water on the dumbest shit for years. Like golf courses in the desert....

 

[Que]

The way my HS physics teacher explained it, Newton was not wrong; Newton's physics is a good approximation of reality, and Einstein's physics is a better approximation. That's how science works.

So explain the political phrase: "Settled Science."