RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Phydeaux -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 2:51:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I mean something that kills 80 % of the world population. Then maybe we can get back to a sane, well run society.
T^T



You liberals are fucking scary.

Zonie advocates killing non-liberals - and taking there stuff.
Vincentml thinks they can live - but taking their stuff is ok.
You just want to kill 80% of the world.




mnottertail -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 2:52:51 PM)

For Termy it is really a case of suicide, because if the sane are the ones left, he is first to go.




Nnanji -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 3:05:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Any fallout from China’s dispute over a couple of insigfnificant islands pales in comparison with the millions of deaths from MMGW predicted over the next few decades. “The [WHO] predicts that an additional 250,000 people will die annually between 2030 and 2050 from conditions caused or exacerbated by climate change.” That's annually, as in 250,000 deaths PER YEAR. According to The Lancet, the number is closer to 500,000+ deaths in 2050. (http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-leads-500000-deaths-altering-food-production-433182)

Hum, I've been hearing the same predictions for nearly 40 years. Still waiting to see one prediction come true. The only real thing to take from it is that now, as well as 40 years ago, the people who believe this stuff sure drink a lot of kool aide.




Nnanji -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 3:12:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
People are working on alternative energy. They have been, intently, since at least the 1970's.

The whole point of climate change is to put more urgency into making this alternative energy happen sooner!

So then, we are all in agreement that we all do not object to this!

As for manufacturing coming back to the US. Honestly, I never understood why Germany can do it, and US can't. Euros is as expensive as the Greenback. And German workers are probably paid more too. Yet why is their manufacturing striving?

Surely US can!



The interesting thing is, and there's been mistakes along the way (ducks flying in to searing hot solar panels because it appeared to be a lake, among other things), also along the way, improvements have been made ("on the shoulders of giants").

That's how we get "there".

Because "here" is a mess.

How could it possibly matter who is right, when we have solutions, improving by the day, that don't pollute our rivers, streams and air?

I wish everyone could get off whatever high horse they're collectively on and just agree that less pollution HAS to be a better option and the irony of it all is....it's not only getting cheaper by the day, while the up front costs are pretty high, even a basic homeowner can improve their energy footprint by 50% for nominal expenditure (rain barrels, curtains for windows for the summer, plastic sheating for same in the winter, buying as often as possible in bulk {fewer trips}), and for those that can afford somewhat more, solar panels, wind turbines and the like).

I know a fellow....a McGuyver type, who built a solar and wind system that powers his entire home (3,500 sf), used batteries, used everything.....12 grand.

He used to pay about 700 bucks a month in electricity....today he pays nothing, but for that initial outlay.

Kinda seems like a no brainer....stop sending dollars to people that want to see us dead, less pollution (which can't be a good thing, no matter where you stand), and pay less money.

I just don't see how that is any kind of negative.

Except, pretty much everything you're saying isn't true. It's not birds flying into hot solar panels. That's a complete lack of understanding of the process. Here's an article that shows your further complete lack of understanding. Everything you've said is like a religious belief because it's certainly not provable in the real world.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/high-tech-solar-projects-fail-to-deliver-2015-06-13





bounty44 -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 3:14:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

What Cinnimongirl67 and 97% of scientists said.


people who continue to perpetuate that 97% myth should be made to go back to middle school and start over.

go here for starters:

http://www.collarchat.com/m_4842343/mpage_2/key_percent/tm.htm# post #36






AtUrCervix -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 4:29:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
People are working on alternative energy. They have been, intently, since at least the 1970's.

The whole point of climate change is to put more urgency into making this alternative energy happen sooner!

So then, we are all in agreement that we all do not object to this!

As for manufacturing coming back to the US. Honestly, I never understood why Germany can do it, and US can't. Euros is as expensive as the Greenback. And German workers are probably paid more too. Yet why is their manufacturing striving?

Surely US can!


No. This is absolutely idiotic ridiculous policy for reasons outlined before.


Wow.

I won't even comment as to dissuade.

I'll just say...I'm sad (for the world) for your opinions.




AtUrCervix -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 4:30:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Any fallout from China’s dispute over a couple of insigfnificant islands pales in comparison with the millions of deaths from MMGW predicted over the next few decades. “The [WHO] predicts that an additional 250,000 people will die annually between 2030 and 2050 from conditions caused or exacerbated by climate change.” That's annually, as in 250,000 deaths PER YEAR. According to The Lancet, the number is closer to 500,000+ deaths in 2050. (http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-leads-500000-deaths-altering-food-production-433182)

Hum, I've been hearing the same predictions for nearly 40 years. Still waiting to see one prediction come true. The only real thing to take from it is that now, as well as 40 years ago, the people who believe this stuff sure drink a lot of kool aide.


Again...why does it matter who's "right"?




AtUrCervix -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 4:32:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
People are working on alternative energy. They have been, intently, since at least the 1970's.

The whole point of climate change is to put more urgency into making this alternative energy happen sooner!

So then, we are all in agreement that we all do not object to this!

As for manufacturing coming back to the US. Honestly, I never understood why Germany can do it, and US can't. Euros is as expensive as the Greenback. And German workers are probably paid more too. Yet why is their manufacturing striving?

Surely US can!



The interesting thing is, and there's been mistakes along the way (ducks flying in to searing hot solar panels because it appeared to be a lake, among other things), also along the way, improvements have been made ("on the shoulders of giants").

That's how we get "there".

Because "here" is a mess.

How could it possibly matter who is right, when we have solutions, improving by the day, that don't pollute our rivers, streams and air?

I wish everyone could get off whatever high horse they're collectively on and just agree that less pollution HAS to be a better option and the irony of it all is....it's not only getting cheaper by the day, while the up front costs are pretty high, even a basic homeowner can improve their energy footprint by 50% for nominal expenditure (rain barrels, curtains for windows for the summer, plastic sheating for same in the winter, buying as often as possible in bulk {fewer trips}), and for those that can afford somewhat more, solar panels, wind turbines and the like).

I know a fellow....a McGuyver type, who built a solar and wind system that powers his entire home (3,500 sf), used batteries, used everything.....12 grand.

He used to pay about 700 bucks a month in electricity....today he pays nothing, but for that initial outlay.

Kinda seems like a no brainer....stop sending dollars to people that want to see us dead, less pollution (which can't be a good thing, no matter where you stand), and pay less money.

I just don't see how that is any kind of negative.

Except, pretty much everything you're saying isn't true. It's not birds flying into hot solar panels. That's a complete lack of understanding of the process. Here's an article that shows your further complete lack of understanding. Everything you've said is like a religious belief because it's certainly not provable in the real world.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/high-tech-solar-projects-fail-to-deliver-2015-06-13




Well....I've been accused of being an ignoramus more than once.

(I think Copernicus held that title for a while as well....I'm okay with that).




Nnanji -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 4:53:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Any fallout from China’s dispute over a couple of insigfnificant islands pales in comparison with the millions of deaths from MMGW predicted over the next few decades. “The [WHO] predicts that an additional 250,000 people will die annually between 2030 and 2050 from conditions caused or exacerbated by climate change.” That's annually, as in 250,000 deaths PER YEAR. According to The Lancet, the number is closer to 500,000+ deaths in 2050. (http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-leads-500000-deaths-altering-food-production-433182)

Hum, I've been hearing the same predictions for nearly 40 years. Still waiting to see one prediction come true. The only real thing to take from it is that now, as well as 40 years ago, the people who believe this stuff sure drink a lot of kool aide.


Again...why does it matter who's "right"?

Because, and this response is also a response to the statement below the statement I'm responding to, you are not Copernicus. You have no understanding of technology. Most of the left who believe as you do have no understanding of technology. You simply hold your beliefs, as did the accusers of Copernicus, as a matter of dogmatic faith. You are not Copernicus you are the church. You are the one wasting time, money, and labor on dogma. Real people are trying to solve real problems and you, along with your church, are holding back progress.

Don't you think everybody wants to quit burning fossil fuels? Don't you think the are hundreds, if not tens of thousands, of real scientists who dream of discovering the "real" alternative? Well, those real scientists will never have the chance, just like Copernicus, as long as people like you dogmatically require them to adhere to your faith.




Greta75 -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 4:55:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
people who continue to perpetuate that 97% myth should be made to go back to middle school and start over.

go here for starters:

http://www.collarchat.com/m_4842343/mpage_2/key_percent/tm.htm# post #36

Do you mean to imply many scientists are agreeing against their will or something?






Phydeaux -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 5:19:42 PM)

Did you bother to read the post?
Post 36.. not 11. Or any of kiratas
Or search 97% and my name and read excerpts of multiples studies that proves this number is utter hogwash.




Greta75 -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 5:24:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Did you bother to read the post?


Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.

Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-campaign-to-mislead-the-american-people/2015/05/29/04a2c448-0574-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html

You mean this post?





Phydeaux -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 5:29:54 PM)

Notice that's an opinion piece?

Ie. No facts required innuendo preferred. Try actual science.




Greta75 -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 5:47:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Notice that's an opinion piece?

Ie. No facts required innuendo preferred. Try actual science.

Actual science really only have data from when satellites and high tech more accurate reading equipment are invented.

And all data shows, unusually high carbon dioxide presence. Sea levels rising twice as fast as it used to be rising. Heat rising annually also at a faster rate than it was years ago.

So to say carbon dioxide concentration has no correlation with all the other unusual happenings, is like, not believing in science.

And I still want to know what is the reason that you think 97% is a lie? Do you think these scientists were forced against their will to agree?

What do you think is the actual percentages of scientists that does not believe in man caused climate change?





Phydeaux -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 7:24:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Notice that's an opinion piece?

Ie. No facts required innuendo preferred. Try actual science.

Actual science really only have data from when satellites and high tech more accurate reading equipment are invented.


No, that's not at all true. One of the primary avenues of investigation is ice cores - for example vostok ice cores. Which can give very precise readings on temperature, co2 concentration etc.

quote:


And all data shows, unusually high carbon dioxide presence.


CO2 concentration is not unusually high. In fact, over the life of the planet, its unusually low . But putting aside that quibble.

We have no question that CO2 concentration is over 400 ppm. But so far the vast majority of the effects are POSITIVE. We are seeing a greening of the planet equal to four billion giant sequoias.
Crop yields are up 11%.

So my point is.. so?

quote:


Sea levels rising twice as fast as it used to be rising.


And in the 1930's it was going up faster than it is today. You are talking about millimeters a year. New Orleans is 26 FEET below sea level. roughly 8000 mm.
Do you really think 1.8 mm a year is really a factor? Really?

quote:


Heat rising annually also at a faster rate than it was years ago.


Cite please. I suspect you mean temperatures. Again, the temperature change since 1997 is less than the error in measurement.

quote:


So to say carbon dioxide concentration has no correlation with all the other unusual happenings, is like, not believing in science.


No, you not reading actual science, is not believing in science. The IPCC AR4 report itself says that even an increase in CO2 concentration to 800 ppm would only increase tempertures 1 degree.


quote:


And I still want to know what is the reason that you think 97% is a lie?


No.

Because it never happened.

I have commented on this extensively. There are three sources that are quoted as originating this bunk. The first is Naomi Orestes. Who has no background in science. She went to a pro alarmist database of papers, looked at the abstracts.
She fudged the numbers she looked at. Then she lied about the results. Out of 11,000 papers, something like 3% supported global warming. She said 97% of the papers that expressed an opionion, supported global warming. Ie., she threw out 10,000 papers.
Of the papers that she qualified as supporting global warming, 70 authors wrote back and said she mischaracterized their papers.

The second source is Cook. Also not a scientist. His skeptical science web site was specifically formed to silence "deniers'. And he formed hit squads to attack people posting skeptical science or opinions. He and a self selected crew again rated abstracts (without reading the actual papers) and rated them as pro AGW or not.
One fellow rated more than 400 papers in an hour. In the process, Cook used a definition of AGW that does not conform to the IPCC definition of AGW. This study was widely, thoroughly and completely debunked.

Finally, there was a physic society one question questionnaire tht asked people (roughly speaking) if they believed in global warming. Hardly a useful question, hardly a scientific study. I believe temperatures are increasing. I dispute the magnitude, the cause, the method used.. etc.

Roughly 45 % of published papers do not support AGW as promulgated by the IPCC.

Finally - the whole question is ridiculous. I don't really care how many people say the world is flat. Science is not established by consensus. Its established by the ability to be able to put forth a theory, and see if the results match the theory. No theory of AGW has ever done that.





littleclip -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 7:58:05 PM)

the melting of glaciers and the arctic passageway open more then it used to. climate change is more than temperatures there are patterns that have been found that are 4000 and 8000 years in length. there have been found evidence of changes in the weather patterns and sea currents that have caused massive changes in the regions that had enjoyed wet weather patterns going dry. the African desert has had jungles in it in the past and it has them about every 8000 years. so there is proof of climate change but how much is caused by man is hard to tell with just a short history compared to natures history. i feel confident that we as humans are changing the environment the plastic that ends up on midway island and causes many birds to die with belly's full of plastic, spawning and migration patterns altered or blocked, introduction of non native animals and plants like the cane toad in Australia, polluting the air and water. we as humans are altering the environment we inhabit not always in a good way. what will happen to the planet when we are gone ? looking at the Chernobyl towns is a clue though a massive disaster nature is reclaiming it plants are growing unchecked and the local animals are prospering in the radiation zone.
so try to leave a smaller carbon footprint generate less waste use energy better lets make the time we have on this planet the best we can




Nnanji -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 8:23:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: littleclip

the melting of glaciers and the arctic passageway open more then it used to. climate change is more than temperatures there are patterns that have been found that are 4000 and 8000 years in length. there have been found evidence of changes in the weather patterns and sea currents that have caused massive changes in the regions that had enjoyed wet weather patterns going dry. the African desert has had jungles in it in the past and it has them about every 8000 years. so there is proof of climate change but how much is caused by man is hard to tell with just a short history compared to natures history. i feel confident that we as humans are changing the environment the plastic that ends up on midway island and causes many birds to die with belly's full of plastic, spawning and migration patterns altered or blocked, introduction of non native animals and plants like the cane toad in Australia, polluting the air and water. we as humans are altering the environment we inhabit not always in a good way. what will happen to the planet when we are gone ? looking at the Chernobyl towns is a clue though a massive disaster nature is reclaiming it plants are growing unchecked and the local animals are prospering in the radiation zone.
so try to leave a smaller carbon footprint generate less waste use energy better lets make the time we have on this planet the best we can

You put a few horses in your yard and they alter the environment as well. You lose a bunch of grass and acquire fertilizer all over the place.




Lucylastic -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 8:28:15 PM)

Oil companies are abandoning the Arctic as temperatures are rising on the drilling debate
The decision by major oil companies to relinquish roughly $3.2 billion in oil and gas leases this week has sparked the once-settled debate on drilling in the rapidly warming Arctic.
Major oil and gas firms confirmed they have abandoned most of their leases in the Arctic in a move that comes as the debate over how best to protect the Arctic from rapid warming has roared back to life.

Oil giants Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips and others have relinquished roughly $3.2 billion worth of oil and gas leases spanning 900,000 hectares of the Arctic Ocean, company officials confirmed Tuesday.

That news comes just as U.S. President Barack Obama and others are facing new pressure to address never-before-seen change in the region.

In March, the maximum winter sea ice extent in the Arctic hit a record low. That same month, parts of the Arctic were more than 4 C higher than the historic average.

“Today we are an important step closer to a sustainable future for the Arctic Ocean,” said Michael Levine, Pacific senior counsel for the advocacy group Oceana. “Hopefully, today marks the end of the ecologically and economically risky push to drill in the Arctic Ocean.”

Increasing numbers of U.S. lawmakers are speaking out in favour of protecting the Arctic. Last week, a group of 66 congressional Democrats signed a letter calling for the Obama administration to ban Arctic drilling altogether in the next round of leasing.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/05/11/oil-companies-are-abandoning-the-arctic-as-temperatures-are-rising-on-the-drilling-debate.html


Big oil abandons US$2.5 billion in U.S. Arctic drilling rights after crude prices plummet

Bloomberg News | May 10, 2016 11:51 AM ET

The U.S. Arctic is estimated to hold 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, but energy companies have struggled to tap resources.

After plunking down more than US$2.5 billion for drilling rights in U.S. Arctic waters, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips and other companies have quietly relinquished claims they once hoped would net the next big oil discovery.

The pullout comes as crude oil prices have plummeted to less than half their June 2014 levels, forcing oil companies to slash spending. For Shell and ConocoPhillips, the decision to abandon Arctic acreage was formalized just before a May 1 due date to pay the U.S. government millions of dollars in rent to keep holdings in the Chukchi Sea north of Alaska.

Shell last year ended a nearly US$8 billion, mishap-marred quest for Arctic crude after disappointing results from a test well in the Chukchi Sea. Shell decided the risk is not worth it for now, and other companies have likely come to the same conclusion, said Peter Kiernan, the lead energy analyst at The Economist Intelligence Unit.


“Arctic exploration has been put back several years, given the low oil price environment, the significant cost involved in exploration and the environmental risks that it entails,” he said.

All told, companies have relinquished 2.2 million acres of drilling rights in the Chukchi Sea — nearly 80 per cent of the leases they bought from the U.S. government in a 2008 auction. Oil companies spent more than US$2.6 billion snapping up 2.8 million acres in the Chukchi Sea during that sale, on top of previous purchases in the Beaufort Sea.

Shell relinquished 274 Chukchi leases and dozens in the neighbouring Beaufort Sea. In doing so, the company forfeits what it paid the U.S government for the rights to drill in those tracts — and the millions of dollars it spent on annual rent since then.

“These actions are consistent with our earlier decision not to explore offshore Alaska for the foreseeable future,” Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said by e-mail. The decision also reflects the high costs of operating off Alaska’s northern coast and evolving regulatory standards, Smith said.

Other energy companies have followed Shell out of the Arctic, according to Interior Department records obtained by the conservation group Oceana under a Freedom of Information Act request and reviewed by Bloomberg News.

ConocoPhillips formally relinquished its 61 Chukchi Sea leases on April 26, and spokeswoman Christina Kuhl said the company will end Interior Board of Land Appeals proceedings that aimed to extend their life.

Statoil dumped 16 Chukchi Sea leases and its working interest stakes in 50 others in the U.S. Arctic last November, conceding the portfolio was “no longer considered competitive.”

Iona Energy Inc., a Canadian oil and gas company that began insolvency proceedings last November, ceded its one lease in the Chukchi Sea on March 31. Italy’s Eni SpA also gave up four leases in the Chukchi Sea on April 28.

Shell indefinitely halted oil exploration in the U.S. Arctic, but is seeking an extension of leases that begin to expire in 2017. That legal battle, playing out in the Interior Board of Land Appeals, will continue.

Final lease

Shell is holding on to one lease in the Chukchi Sea: the tract it drilled last year. Smith said Shell is maintaining that lone lease — at a potential cost of US$132,456 over the next four years — because there is value in the data the company gathered during its 2015 exploratory drilling. Companies generally have to give the U.S. government the geological information they glean from oil and gas development in federal waters, but they can get an extra two to 10 years to turn over that data as long as they still hold the territory.

The rash of relinquishments means “we are an important step closer to a sustainable future for the Arctic Ocean,” said Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel for Oceana, which opposed government decisions to authorize oil development in the area and wants science to guide industrial development there. “Hopefully, today marks the end of the risk, litigation and expense caused by the push to drill in the Arctic Ocean.”

Now, only 535,586 acres remain locked up in the Chukchi Sea. Besides Shell’s one lease there, the tracts are in the hands of just one oil producer: Spain’s Repsol SA. Spokesmen for the company did not return requests for comment.

Next auction

It could be years — if ever — before oil companies get another chance to buy drilling rights in the region. The United States could turn around and resell the forfeited leases if any companies actually wanted to buy them, but the Interior Department canceled upcoming lease sales amid low industry interest last year.

The Interior Department is considering selling leases in the Beaufort Sea in 2020 and the Chukchi Sea two years later, but those auctions are far from certain, and environmentalists are pushing the Obama administration to rule them out entirely. Oceana’s LeVine said oil companies’ decision to forfeit Arctic drilling rights shows “there is no compelling reason to schedule new lease sales.”

Even beyond the United States, there are strong headwinds discouraging oil companies from sending drill bits spinning below Arctic waters. Last month, Shell withdrew an application for a drilling license in Norway’s share of the Arctic Ocean.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/big-oil-abandons-us2-5-billion-in-u-s-arctic-drilling-rights-after-crude-prices-plummet?__lsa=94ee-61c6


I have to admit, reading this almost a year after protesters kayaked against the ice breaker for shell I havent been so squirrel tailed for a long time.

Climate change, global warming, meh ...we are destroying the planet, if you(generic) dont see we need to do more sooner, then you need a brain transplant.




Nnanji -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 8:32:32 PM)

Ah, tell me how ocean currents are involved in what you just put forth?




Lucylastic -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/11/2016 8:37:13 PM)

Edited to add quote
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Ah, tell me how ocean currents are involved in what you just put forth?
You mean where the arctic is vital for fresh water inflows to the whole entire world, or that its vital to our basic climate?




Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625