It. Came. True.Remember the threat of acid rain in the 80's? What happened to that "scientific" prediction?
https://www.epa.gov/acidrain
[doublepost=1490964050][/doublepost]Part of the reason I like Apple.
It. Came. True.Remember the threat of acid rain in the 80's? What happened to that "scientific" prediction?
I understand the science and how much scientists don't know. Thinking otherwise would mean there are no more scientific discoveries. A good question would be how accurate are the models in predicting the future? I haven't seen any that hold up very long.
If the US were to stop all CO2 emissions, how much would the temperature decline?
In the mean time, other countries that have a higher CO2 impact continue to improve their economy while ours declines with the higher costs.
I'm a climate scientist. If you don't believe what me and my colleagues have been warning about for 20+ years, that's fine. But if policy makers or the president don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit their agenda, we do have a problem. Science is not political. It's just science. Facts.
The biggest argument for climate change deniers is that climate has been changing since the dawn of time. Guess how they know that? Yes, us climate scientists. But if those same scientists notice there's something wrong, suddenly they don't believe it. Hypocritical no?
How ignorant can you be to think we don't have an impact on our planet. We destroy complete ecosystems, wipe animal and plant species of the face of the earth, cut down forests at an alarming rate, pollute rivers and the air, ... we know that land use changes such as urbanisation and agriculture have a big impact on weather and rain patterns, even thousands kilometres away, ... But the climate? That's where you draw the line? That's the one magical thing on our fragile Earth we can't impact?
Well, the impact is there, and it's huge. The last decades we had a dampening effect of climate change because there are all these buffers, like trapping heath in the oceans, but these buffers are getting full. That combined with many powerful feedback loops, i.e. melting of ice, thawing of permafrost, to name a few, will re-enforce what we have been seeing this last years. And that is a rise in global temperature and more unstable, extreme weather.
Now, even if you still don't "believe" that (and I hate to use that word in the context of science), I assume you do realise that climate change (natural or man made) will have huge impacts on the planet and our lives? So even if the current White House administration doesn't want to address the causes, why is it also ignoring the consequences? Ignoring scientific facts and thus jeopardizing the future of our planet, is criminal. There's no other word for it.
Your dog may be able to grasp the difference between local weather and global climate, which apparently can't be said for you....And the forecast for tomorrow is...
Usually wrong. Meanwhile, my dog is never wrong when a thunderstorm is headed our way. Does he get an honorary doctorate?
Oil isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The hypocrisy of these companies is amazing. Without oil and petrochemicals, their business lines would cease to exist in no time. Oil is used in everything from the mining of raw materials, to manufacturing and processing of their products to shipping. And this whole thing about using renewables is just virtue signalling. Their efforts will have zero impact on global warming, or climate change, or whatever they call it these days. The climate has been changing since the dawn of time and it's ludicrous to think humans have any impact on it. CO2 is plant food, not pollution. I'm all for clean air, water and land, but this green religion called climate change is nothing but a sham.
And the forecast for tomorrow is...
Usually wrong. Meanwhile, my dog is never wrong when a thunderstorm is headed our way. Does he get an honorary doctorate?
They publish their findings in scientific journals for goodness sake. Math and data doesn't lie.No. I don't need a climate scientist to tell me that winters and summers have gradually changed, I can see that myself. Also whilst I’m not calling you a liar, climate scientists are capable of lying just like the rest of us. Just because a group of you say it is so, doesn't mean it is. Research is a funny thing and often times those funding it often push for particular results so the result is not objective and all encompassing.
If you think that things can't be presented in the right way and hiding the right things when business and politicians need them to you’re crazy.They publish their findings in scientific journals for goodness sake. Math and data doesn't lie.
Remember the threat of acid rain in the 80's? What happened to that "scientific" prediction?
"It was the narrative from the beginning. In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda.”
“So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2 etc.
If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?
If I look through my department, at least half of them keep mum. Just keep on doing your work, trying to figure out how it works.
MIT ‘has just announced that they see this bringing in $300 million bucks. It will support all sorts of things.’"
"To be part of the “consensus” one need only agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.
“Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper,” writes Montford. “The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.”
"Professor Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, and president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said yesterday: ‘I disagree with Gavin. The record warm years of 2015 and 2016 were primarily caused by the super El Nino.’
The slowdown in warming was, she added, real, and all the evidence suggested that since 1998, the rate of global warming has been much slower than predicted by computer models – about 1C per century."
"Eight years after the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned of mass starvation from global warming caused by high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), emissions of the greenhouse gas are at record levels. But so is worldwide crop production.
However, according to a report also released in November by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, “world cereal production in 2014 is forecast at a new record of 2,532 million tonnes… 7 million tonnes (0.3 percent) above last year’s peak.” That includes a record level of wheat production worldwide, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture."
The environment is certainly changing, but the correlation of increases in atmospheric CO2 levels and the recent industrialisation of the globe is hard to ignore as not being direct evidence and causal.Oil isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The hypocrisy of these companies is amazing. Without oil and petrochemicals, their business lines would cease to exist in no time. Oil is used in everything from the mining of raw materials, to manufacturing and processing of their products to shipping. And this whole thing about using renewables is just virtue signalling. Their efforts will have zero impact on global warming, or climate change, or whatever they call it these days. The climate has been changing since the dawn of time and it's ludicrous to think humans have any impact on it. CO2 is plant food, not pollution. I'm all for clean air, water and land, but this green religion called climate change is nothing but a sham.
And the forecast for tomorrow is... Usually wrong. Meanwhile, my dog is never wrong when a thunderstorm is headed our way. Does he get an honorary doctorate?
The climate has been changing at a far, far higher rate than it ever has before. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is a fact of fundamental physics. And the huge increases in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases are forcing global temperatures to rise (in most places), and increases in extreme weather (very hot / cold / wet / dry). These are things that we have literally and unambiguously observed. Extensive research has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that: (a) humans are responsible for the huge increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases in the past 200 years, and (b) that these gases are driving climate change.
I'm sorry if you have been lied to, or if you find it convenient to wilfully disbelieve the scientific consensus. But that doesn't make the threat of climate change any less real.
"We" know climate change is happening. But the US government knows it's a Chinese hoax, and that's the truth.
Nobody wants you to live in a cardboard box. Don't be a drama queen. It's the president that wants us to move back in time, back to the coal era. But instead, we need to move forward. And urgently switch to clean power.
Carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. are at their lowest level in 20 years. It’s not because of wind or solar power.
only 3 year and 9 months left for this Idiot. Lets hope the is a world left![]()
I'm shocked that attitude towards climate change is even considered "political". We know climate change is happening. We know oil is finite and will run out in the next 200 years or so. America could be generations ahead of the curve if it seriously invested in renewable energy.
Surly even Trump would like this - America would look clean and modern. There's the potential for job creation. There's the potential to make a ton of money by selling the oil America would no longer need, and later on the technology so the rest of the world can transition to renewable energy.
I don't understand the current decision, unless Trump really is thinking super short term.
So you support Fracking and Nuclear?
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ns_are_at_the_lowest_levels_in_20_years_.html