Climate Change

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 55
Were fucked.

I only hope I have enough money to move somewhere so that I am barely impacted by it until my death. 

So how's your day? 
--> @TheRealNihilist
So where was this God when we needed a little bit of help and advice?

Or is it going to turn up at the end and point it's divine finger and go ha ha ha you stupid human twats.
--> @zedvictor4
point it's divine finger and go ha ha ha you stupid human twats
This.
--> @TheRealNihilist
Ha Ha Ha.
--> @TheRealNihilist
the alarmist have purchased multi million dollar beach houses, still travel in private planes, they don't seem concerned, I don't think you should be either.
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Are they intelligent in the field?


--> @TheRealNihilist
they sure seem to think so since they were on tv preaching their gloom and doom
I ain't scared of no flood (I ain't scared of no ghost, ghostbusters!)
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
they sure seem to think so since they were on tv preaching their gloom and doom
I ain't scared of no flood (I ain't scared of no ghost, ghostbusters!)
Let me repeat my question and hope you understand it this time.
Are they intelligent in the field?
--> @TheRealNihilist
are you?
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Still going to answer my question?


--> @TheRealNihilist
the likes of Obama, Decaprio, democratic candidates, children giving speeches or organizing rallies, no they are not "intelligent in the field?"  But when has being informed or intelligent about a subject hindered anyone?
You have the scientist alarmist and the scientist deniers, which one to believe?  There are two sides to every story, somewhere in the middle is the truth.
the likes of Obama, Decaprio, democratic candidates, children giving speeches or organizing rallies, no they are not "intelligent in the field?"  But when has being informed or intelligent about a subject hindered anyone?
I guess you are stating might equals right. I don't disagree.
You have the scientist alarmist and the scientist deniers, which one to believe?
The people who use evidence because that is the best way we can separate opinions from facts.
There are two sides to every story, somewhere in the middle is the truth.
That isn't true. If one side is that climate change exists and another is climate change doesn't exist. The facts go heavily on the side of climate change existing so there isn't always truth in the middle.

Do you have a qualified scientist denying the existence of climate change or are you not going to answer the simple question I made more specific here? 

--> @TheRealNihilist

though the definitions of the terms can be problematic imo, change does not always = negative outcome.

the answer I keep hearing (solution) is doing away with fossil fuel, cars, cows etc.  Though how that would really change things is a guess at best.  Besides being impractical it would cost trillions of dollars and the biggest offenders wouldn't "clean up their act" (pun intended)  We should strive for the cleanest air and water practical and there is more we could so.  Izak Walton leagues often do road side and waterway cleanups.  Organized cleanups like adopt a road type things don't require government involvement, just community.  Anyway the point is, if people really cared and believed you'd see more personal involvement, accountability and responsibility don't you think?
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
It seems like you didn't even read your own link because it is supports me.
Quote:
"here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane."

though the definitions of the terms can be problematic imo, change does not always = negative outcome.
Yes change isn't always negative but I am not applying a moral judgement to climate change. I am just saying it is the case. Do you agree on that and that it is "attributable to human activities before we make moral claims?
the answer I keep hearing (solution) is doing away with fossil fuel, cars, cows etc.  Though how that would really change things is a guess at best.  Besides being impractical it would cost trillions of dollars and the biggest offenders wouldn't "clean up their act" (pun intended)  We should strive for the cleanest air and water practical and there is more we could so.  Izak Walton leagues often do road side and waterway cleanups.  Organized cleanups like adopt a road type things don't require government involvement, just community.  Anyway the point is, if people really cared and believed you'd see more personal involvement, accountability and responsibility don't you think?
Which is why I say were fucked. Given how much of a tremendous feat the entire Earth has to commit too it is almost impossible for global change to occur. Theoretically it would be all nations agreeing to do X which reduces the impacts of climate change but given tensions around the world I don't see that to be likely.

I don't know about Izak Walton which is why I didn't comment on it. I am simply saying were fucked as in a large group of the world's population would not do anything until they have personally felt the impact of it.

Anyway the point is, if people really cared and believed you'd see more personal involvement, accountability and responsibility don't you think?
I think the numbers would have to be in the billions to mean anything and that might not be enough if it isn't close to the number of people on Earth. 
My biggest issue with the climate change push is that it is going to be the justification that is used to stage  a government takeover of the economy... maybe even lead into some population control in the name of sustainability business.

Well, excuse me if that makes me suspicious, but I eat a plant based diet and recycle more than I throw away, so what are you doing? We ought to be good to the environment. That takes personal accountability that just isn't compatible with the hedonistic culture of consumption and decadence that practically defines America at this point in history.



--> @TheRealNihilist
temperatures in cities are warmer than the surrounding areas as I'm sure large parking lots etc  this is and has been a measurable thing.  Do those things have a global impact?  I'm not sure.

I don't believe the earth will end in 10 years, but we can hope.

The global warming/climate change is all prediction.  which is nothing new as it's been happening for decades and yet here we still are no worse for wear.  Given they have been wrong every single time, but this time is different...well you'll excuse my skepticism.

though I do agree with your point that if this is true we would be in a bad way because people are the way they are.  Imo there is little to no hope any drastic change could or would ever be made, they would wait until it's much too late, that's just the nature of the animal.
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
temperatures in cities are warmer than the surrounding areas as I'm sure large parking lots etc  this is and has been a measurable thing.  Do those things have a global impact?  I'm not sure.
I mean when you do say something please try to go somewhere. I don't know what I am supposed to take from this. Skepticism even though there is evidence?
I don't believe the earth will end in 10 years, but we can hope.
Is that agreed upon by the majority of scientists?
which is nothing new as it's been happening for decades and yet here we still are no worse for wear.
If we weren't worse for wear why did the UK experience the most forest fires in 2019?
First thing that came to mind because I saw it somewhere and I remembered it.
Given they have been wrong every single time
So we shouldn't trust scientist?
They are wrong now even with current data? 
Please do finish your train of thought instead of simply stopping at a cliffhanger.
Imo there is little to no hope any drastic change could or would ever be made, they would wait until it's much too late,
I don't disagree like I said earlier people would react when they actually see the problem more than simply realizing it would be a problem of the future so they can basically wave off for tomorrow until the tomorrow is when they house burnt down or something.
that's just the nature of the animal.
Weird comment. Nurture is also what defines humans not just nature. 
--> @TheRealNihilist
your article
Barbeques and arson
“Both the fires in February and over this Easter weekend coincided with long warm dry periods with steady easterly winds – fire weather – and also with ignition risk from school holidays,” says Smith.

then there's a link to a paper "2017 was the fifth warmest year for the UK in a series from 1910, but the summerwas closer to average so that the year overall was not a notable year for hightemperature indices."

The highest rainfall accumulation over five days during the most recent decade(2008-2017) is 4 % higher than 1961-1990. The amount of rain from extremely wetdays has increased by 17% when comparing the same periods.

There is a slight increase in the longest sequence of consecutive wet days for theUK. There has been a general decline in the longest sequence of consecutive drydays.

so......

just because they had a bad year doesn't mean anything, 1 of something is just that, not a trend or evidence.

any other "predictions"?

don't get me wrong I remember the hole in the ozone but there's not much we are going to do to fix whatever they think bad will happen, unless we severely limit the human population.  As more land is developed and stripped that will most likely have some effect and I would even say a negative one.  
consider an all vegan human population, the amount of farm land, fertilizers, pesticides and trucks to haul it all over the place, that doesn't sound any better.  Not to mention importing even more from other countries with no real standards or regulations.  Supplemental watering would be impossible.  So a weather pattern which has a negative impact on crops in a given area could be catastrophic.

what is the solution to the problem?  if there isn't one wgaf?



just because they had a bad year doesn't mean anything, 1 of something is just that, not a trend or evidence.
Worse than any-other. You sure you are reading it correctly? For something to be the worst it would have to be worse than any other recorded year. 
any other "predictions"?
What did I predict in the first place? I mainly stated what is like your wiki link which stated there is a scientific consensus on climate change and UK are experiencing the most forest fire this year.
don't get me wrong I remember the hole in the ozone but there's not much we are going to do to fix whatever they think bad will happen, unless we severely limit the human population.  As more land is developed and stripped that will most likely have some effect and I would even say a negative one.  
consider an all vegan human population, the amount of farm land, fertilizers, pesticides and trucks to haul it all over the place, that doesn't sound any better.  Not to mention importing even more from other countries with no real standards or regulations.  Supplemental watering would be impossible.  So a weather pattern which has a negative impact on crops in a given area could be catastrophic.
Conjecture.
what is the solution to the problem?  if there isn't one wgaf?
wgaf?
World wide agreement and continual following of series of actions to limit climate change. This can be limiting population. Limiting fossil fuels. Using Nuclear and then moving onto renewable when effective. Things like these but the global agreement and continued agreement is going to be really difficult to pull off. 
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Above
--> @TheRealNihilist
Conjecture.
yes as I pointed out tying the U.K. fires to climate change is conjecture.

Worse than any-other. 
weather/seasons etc are not static, new extremes should be expected regardless of what anyone thinks the cause is.  The melting of the ice age was pretty extreme, but not man made right?
All records are meant to be broken, doesn't mean a thing unless you can show a trend, even then correlation does not imply causation.

predictions of what will happen if climate change is real, those science people you keep referring to, what other predictions do they have?

who gives a f*** wgaf :)
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Conspiracy Theorists:

There are always people who think that science and scientists are out to deceive everyone else. 
And if it's not scientists that they mistrust or resent, it will be politicians or any other successful persons.

Nonetheless, humanity assisted climate change is a real and natural process and similarly any outcomes or counter measures will also be real and natural processes.

Que sera sera, as Doris informed us.





--> @zedvictor4
sure, but with the many lies "scientist" have puportrated over the many years, and even on this subject, is it any wonder why there's distrust?
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
yes as I pointed out tying the U.K. fires to climate change is conjecture.
So your making the claim increase forest fires are not a link to climate change? Please give me what it is because of then.
weather/seasons etc are not static, new extremes should be expected regardless of what anyone thinks the cause is.  The melting of the ice age was pretty extreme, but not man made right?
What? ""However, during the last 20 years, almost 70 percent of the glacier mass changes were caused by climate change due to humans,""
All records are meant to be broken, doesn't mean a thing unless you can show a trend, even then correlation does not imply causation.
Records are meant to be broken? Please explain this.
predictions of what will happen if climate change is real, those science people you keep referring to, what other predictions do they have?
Climate change is real. They are simply reporting what is occurring. Predictions can be given but I didn't give them because things can change like the magic bullet to stop climate change.
who gives a f*** wgaf :)
Okay. I don't understand slang most of the time.


--> @TheRealNihilist
I've quoted from your link why I said the fires in the U.K. were conjecture, I'm not sure what else to say but I'll try again

your article
Barbeques and arson
“Both the fires in February and over this Easter weekend coincided with long warm dry periods with steady easterly winds – fire weather – and also with ignition risk from school holidays,” says Smith.

(so the fires could have been man made, accidental etc, nothing to do with climate change, more people out due to holidays.)

then there's a link to a paper "2017 was the fifth warmest year for the UK in a series from 1910, but the summer was closer to average so that the year overall was not a notable year for high temperature indices."

The highest rainfall accumulation over five days during the most recent decade(2008-2017) is 4 % higher than 1961-1990. The amount of rain from extremely wet days has increased by 17% when comparing the same periods.

(it wasn't drier than usual, in fact it was wetter than usual so again doesn't fit the climate change for fires because of abnormal dry conditions)

There is a slight increase in the longest sequence of consecutive wet days for the UK. There has been a general decline in the longest sequence of consecutive dry days.

(again abnormally long dry conditions were not present)
these fires were man made and or anomalies, there is no link that I can see to climate change given the facts THEY themselves have presented.