|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I think that the focus should be on costs and what the proposed solutions actually will end up costing. Don't hurt the energy industry just to save the environment, that's just not cool in my eyes. Getting oil out of the ground and keeping our lifestyle from going down is most important.
|
On May 15 2014 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 05:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A report released Tuesday from an advisory group of retired U.S. military leadership echoes the findings of other recent reports on climate change: It is real, it is already happening and it poses major threats to the U.S. and the rest of the world.
The federally funded Center for Naval Analyses and its Military Advisory Board, a group of 16 retired three- and four-star generals and admirals, affirm in the report that climate events like flooding, prolonged drought and rising sea levels, and the subsequent population dislocation and food insecurity, will serve as "catalysts for instability and conflict" in vulnerable regions of the world.
"We no longer have the option to wait and see," former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta write in a foreword to the report, which they describe as a "bipartisan call to action."
The report laments the politicization of climate change and continued inaction from Congress on the issue. "Politically charged debate has silenced sound public discourse," it reads in part.
"We hope this report will both influence public opinion as well as influence national security policymakers and leaders," retired Navy rear admiral and co-author David Titley told The Huffington Post. "We are speaking out because we believe the risk is accelerating, and will continue to do so unless action is taken now." Source So science has recognized it as a threat, our military has recognized it as a threat, our president and majority of the senate have recognized it as a threat, why is it so hard to get Republicans at large to realize it is a threat, regardless of it's cause...
Because it's an incredibly loaded conversation. Everyone is too deeply entrenched in name calling and extreme positions. It's less about 'what should we do' and more about 'who is right'.
|
On May 15 2014 06:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2014 05:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A report released Tuesday from an advisory group of retired U.S. military leadership echoes the findings of other recent reports on climate change: It is real, it is already happening and it poses major threats to the U.S. and the rest of the world.
The federally funded Center for Naval Analyses and its Military Advisory Board, a group of 16 retired three- and four-star generals and admirals, affirm in the report that climate events like flooding, prolonged drought and rising sea levels, and the subsequent population dislocation and food insecurity, will serve as "catalysts for instability and conflict" in vulnerable regions of the world.
"We no longer have the option to wait and see," former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta write in a foreword to the report, which they describe as a "bipartisan call to action."
The report laments the politicization of climate change and continued inaction from Congress on the issue. "Politically charged debate has silenced sound public discourse," it reads in part.
"We hope this report will both influence public opinion as well as influence national security policymakers and leaders," retired Navy rear admiral and co-author David Titley told The Huffington Post. "We are speaking out because we believe the risk is accelerating, and will continue to do so unless action is taken now." Source So science has recognized it as a threat, our military has recognized it as a threat, our president and majority of the senate have recognized it as a threat, why is it so hard to get Republicans at large to realize it is a threat, regardless of it's cause... Because it's an incredibly loaded conversation. Everyone is too deeply entrenched in name calling and extreme positions. It's less about 'what should we do?' and more about 'who is right'.
I don't really see how that could/should/would/does stop us from just getting over the two mindbogglingly difficult humps of: 1. Climate changes, humans can impact it in an observable way that needs to be addressed (from a scientific, economic, and social perspective), 2. The Earth is muuuuuuuuch more than ~9,000 years old.
The debate about those two(maybe three) issues needs to be settled and over with in reasonable political discourse. Anyone that wants to cling to ideas contrary to that, really should politely excuse themselves from the discussion at large (not referring to this forum especially) until they can agree to those base facts.
|
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them.
|
On May 15 2014 06:32 Wolfstan wrote:
I think that the focus should be on costs and what the proposed solutions actually will end up costing. Don't hurt the energy industry just to save the environment, that's just not cool in my eyes. Getting oil out of the ground and keeping our lifestyle from going down is most important.
The problem with this attitude is that the people who benefit are not the same as those who may be affected by the costs.
And don't hurt the energy industry just to save the environment?
It's pretty much the opposite in my view :/
|
On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them.
Your talking about America. A country where thinking that God made the earth a few thousand years ago is a socially acceptable viewpoint. Evidence is not something they are very much into.
|
On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them.
What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science?
Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids.
|
On May 15 2014 01:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +700,000 jobs at risk if Highway Trust Fund falters
The Obama administration warned Tuesday that failure to avert a threatened bankruptcy of the federal Highway Trust Fund this summer could mean the delay of about 112,000 roadway projects and 5,600 transit projects – and cost the economy as many as 700,000 construction jobs in the next year.
The Department of Transportation has projected that the Highway Trust Fund, which finances more than $50 billion a year in major highway, bridge and transit projects, is running out of money and will dip below the critical level of $4 billion as early as July. The trust fund has been financed by receipts from an18.4 cents per gallon gas tax and a 24.4 cents per gallon diesel fuel tax. More recently, revenues have seriously lagged behind highway project expenditures and the government has had to shift money from other accounts to keep the fund solvent. SourceCome on Congress, this shouldn't be so hard. Raise the gas tax and stop overpaying for roads. Maybe even drop CAFE standards when you're done. You're dreaming if they'll ever end CAFE standards, not enough pushback against them. It's a pleasant dream, though.
|
On May 15 2014 07:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 01:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:700,000 jobs at risk if Highway Trust Fund falters
The Obama administration warned Tuesday that failure to avert a threatened bankruptcy of the federal Highway Trust Fund this summer could mean the delay of about 112,000 roadway projects and 5,600 transit projects – and cost the economy as many as 700,000 construction jobs in the next year.
The Department of Transportation has projected that the Highway Trust Fund, which finances more than $50 billion a year in major highway, bridge and transit projects, is running out of money and will dip below the critical level of $4 billion as early as July. The trust fund has been financed by receipts from an18.4 cents per gallon gas tax and a 24.4 cents per gallon diesel fuel tax. More recently, revenues have seriously lagged behind highway project expenditures and the government has had to shift money from other accounts to keep the fund solvent. SourceCome on Congress, this shouldn't be so hard. Raise the gas tax and stop overpaying for roads. Maybe even drop CAFE standards when you're done. You're dreaming if they'll ever end CAFE standards, not enough pushback against them. It's a pleasant dream, though.
I know. They're seen as "free" so no one wants to junk them.
|
On May 15 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science? Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids.
What exactly is a moderate position on this topic? 99% of the scientists involved agree that climate change is heavily influenced by humans and that the occurring changes are going to have disastrous consequences if we don't react. Which reputable source predicts something else?
edit: also weather climate change is real or not isn't a political question, it's a scientific question. This is not about opinions, but about facts. It's not like we're debating minimum wage here where you could be like "yeah , but we need to take a moderate, pragmatic approach..." Climate change will have extreme consequences, labeling people as "climate extremists" doesn't make any sense. If anything asking for radical change if a extreme problem is concerned that's precisely the right thing to do.
|
Kentucky on Wednesday sued the federal government for return of agricultural hemp seeds seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration after the agency told state officials they would have to apply for a permit to get them back, state Agriculture Commissioner James Comer told HuffPost.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Louisville, names the DEA, the Department of Justice, Customs and Border Protection and Attorney General Eric Holder. It asks for return of the 250-pound shipment of seeds from Italy that the state had planned to use for an industrial hemp-growing pilot project. Industrial hemp production was legalized for research in the recent farm bill, but the DEA contends importation remains illegal and on Tuesday demanded Kentucky apply for a permit.
"I hated to do that, but we've been misled and it's obviously a stall tactic," Comer said. "We have farmers who wanna grow it. We have processors who wanna process it. We have researchers who wanna research it. We bought and paid for the seeds," Comer said. "Here in Kentucky there's a desperate need to find an alternative to tobacco."
Kentucky officials said earlier they believed the DEA had agreed to return the seeds. But then the DEA reversed the deal, said Holly Harris VonLuehrte, a senior official at the Kentucky agriculture office. The DEA told the Kentucky Department of Agriculture in a Tuesday night letter, obtained by HuffPost through an open records request, that the state has to apply for a permit to import Schedule I drugs before it can gain access to the seeds.
"We were told yesterday in multiple phone calls that we wouldn't have to do this Schedule I import permit," said VonLuehrte, adding that agreeing to the DEA demand would be an implicit admission that hemp remains illegal, classified by the U.S. government as a Schedule I drug. "Industrial hemp is not a Schedule I controlled substance. We're not going to execute a document that violates federal and state law."
Source
|
On May 15 2014 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. Your talking about America. A country where thinking that God made the earth a few thousand years ago is a socially acceptable viewpoint. Evidence is not something they are very much into.
.../Sigh... I forget sometimes the global nature of this forum... See conservatives? How this debate looks to the rest of the world...
After doing more research I don't even know how/why so many Americans still believe the Young Earth stuff... Just based off the position of the religious leaders they claim to follow it should be a lower percentage. The Pope is cool with a multiple billion year old Earth, how/why is it so few of his American 'followers' are on board?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZgKo7B5.gif)
This made me both cry and cringe a little. What I find especially alarming (and part of why I am harping on it) is what is happening around 2011-2012 WTF?!? like seriously WTF!??!?
|
On May 15 2014 07:13 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science? Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids. What exactly is a moderate position on this topic? 99% of the scientists involved agree that climate change is heavily influenced by humans and that the occurring changes are going to have disastrous consequences if we don't react. Which reputable source predicts something else?
The moderate position is that the science isn't very accurate yet. Climate models don't have much predicting power and so public policy should not revolve around them.
Also, we've already been reacting for generations.
|
On May 15 2014 07:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 07:13 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science? Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids. What exactly is a moderate position on this topic? 99% of the scientists involved agree that climate change is heavily influenced by humans and that the occurring changes are going to have disastrous consequences if we don't react. Which reputable source predicts something else? The moderate position is that the science isn't very accurate yet. Climate models don't have much predicting power and so public policy should not revolve around them. Also, we've already been reacting for generations.
No, that's a flat out lie. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and
SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}"
|
On May 15 2014 07:13 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science? Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids. What exactly is a moderate position on this topic? 99% of the scientists involved agree that climate change is heavily influenced by humans and that the occurring changes are going to have disastrous consequences if we don't react. Which reputable source predicts something else?
A moderate position is we have 100-200 years before irreversible catastrophe at current trends. Technology may be 20-50 years away with current trends. 5 degrees global change is an adaptable amount, as is 3mm sea level rise. That nature is a resilient force, not a pushover. Moderates want the discussion shifted away from how much we should gut our economy and lifestyle to investment in the technology that will benefit humanity more than shuttering our options we have today.
|
On May 15 2014 07:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 07:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:13 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science? Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids. What exactly is a moderate position on this topic? 99% of the scientists involved agree that climate change is heavily influenced by humans and that the occurring changes are going to have disastrous consequences if we don't react. Which reputable source predicts something else? The moderate position is that the science isn't very accurate yet. Climate models don't have much predicting power and so public policy should not revolve around them. Also, we've already been reacting for generations. No, that's a flat out lie. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}"
Huh? I don't think you understand what I wrote. Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future.
|
On May 15 2014 07:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 07:23 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:13 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science? Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids. What exactly is a moderate position on this topic? 99% of the scientists involved agree that climate change is heavily influenced by humans and that the occurring changes are going to have disastrous consequences if we don't react. Which reputable source predicts something else? The moderate position is that the science isn't very accurate yet. Climate models don't have much predicting power and so public policy should not revolve around them. Also, we've already been reacting for generations. No, that's a flat out lie. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}" Huh? I don't think you understand what I wrote. Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future.
Yes, that's how you predict the future. Or do you have data from the future? What kind of moronic argument is that?
@Wolstan: What exactly we should do can be debated. That climate change is very real, heavily influenced by humans, and will significantly affect humans in the future is a fact and not up for discussion.
|
On May 15 2014 07:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 07:23 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:13 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science? Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids. What exactly is a moderate position on this topic? 99% of the scientists involved agree that climate change is heavily influenced by humans and that the occurring changes are going to have disastrous consequences if we don't react. Which reputable source predicts something else? The moderate position is that the science isn't very accurate yet. Climate models don't have much predicting power and so public policy should not revolve around them. Also, we've already been reacting for generations. No, that's a flat out lie. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}" Huh? I don't think you understand what I wrote. Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future.
"Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future"
-Jonny, 2014
|
On May 15 2014 07:30 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 07:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:23 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:13 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science? Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids. What exactly is a moderate position on this topic? 99% of the scientists involved agree that climate change is heavily influenced by humans and that the occurring changes are going to have disastrous consequences if we don't react. Which reputable source predicts something else? The moderate position is that the science isn't very accurate yet. Climate models don't have much predicting power and so public policy should not revolve around them. Also, we've already been reacting for generations. No, that's a flat out lie. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}" Huh? I don't think you understand what I wrote. Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future. Yes, that's how you predict the future. Or do you have data from the future? What kind of moronic argument is that? @Wolstan: What exactly we should do can be debated. That climate change is very real, heavily influenced by humans, and will significantly affect humans in the future is a fact and not up for discussion.
On May 15 2014 07:32 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 07:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:23 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:13 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science? Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids. What exactly is a moderate position on this topic? 99% of the scientists involved agree that climate change is heavily influenced by humans and that the occurring changes are going to have disastrous consequences if we don't react. Which reputable source predicts something else? The moderate position is that the science isn't very accurate yet. Climate models don't have much predicting power and so public policy should not revolve around them. Also, we've already been reacting for generations. No, that's a flat out lie. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}" Huh? I don't think you understand what I wrote. Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future. "Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future" -Jonny, 2014
Stay in school kids 
|
On May 15 2014 07:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 07:30 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:23 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:13 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science? Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids. What exactly is a moderate position on this topic? 99% of the scientists involved agree that climate change is heavily influenced by humans and that the occurring changes are going to have disastrous consequences if we don't react. Which reputable source predicts something else? The moderate position is that the science isn't very accurate yet. Climate models don't have much predicting power and so public policy should not revolve around them. Also, we've already been reacting for generations. No, that's a flat out lie. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}" Huh? I don't think you understand what I wrote. Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future. Yes, that's how you predict the future. Or do you have data from the future? What kind of moronic argument is that? @Wolstan: What exactly we should do can be debated. That climate change is very real, heavily influenced by humans, and will significantly affect humans in the future is a fact and not up for discussion. Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 07:32 Chocolate wrote:On May 15 2014 07:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:23 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:13 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science? Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids. What exactly is a moderate position on this topic? 99% of the scientists involved agree that climate change is heavily influenced by humans and that the occurring changes are going to have disastrous consequences if we don't react. Which reputable source predicts something else? The moderate position is that the science isn't very accurate yet. Climate models don't have much predicting power and so public policy should not revolve around them. Also, we've already been reacting for generations. No, that's a flat out lie. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}" Huh? I don't think you understand what I wrote. Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future. "Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future" -Jonny, 2014 Stay in school kids
No you're making a fool of yourself by saying retarded stuff, that's not our problem
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
