Global Warming, Where do you stand? Poll

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

. Because the way I see it, its not fair to me or anyone else working and paying taxes in this country............

I think it is fair to me. I am more than willing to pay more to pollute less, and in fact, I do so by electing more expensive but greener energy sources from my electric company. :)

 

[SPSREEFS]

If you want to throw your money away and believe they have you best interest at heart....well I guess you deserve it......lol

 

[Tahoe61]

As difficult as it is please refrain from adding political content to the discussion.

...;););)

 

[RobertP]

That is rather difficult since I see "man-made global warming" as purely a political issue. I will just say this and then ignore this thread....climate change has been going on LONG before man ever set foot on this world and will not stop simply because we want it to. Ask the dinosaurs how much influence man had on their climate when they were annihilated.

 

[Lasse]

As difficult as it is please refrain from adding political content to the discussion ...;););)

I´m sorry - I couldent hold myself - it was a clear penalty cick :)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

PSLReefer, Funny. Coming from a guy that has provided NOTHING but replies to what everyone else has posted on here. Just because one does not go with the majority does not mean they are incorrect. NOTHING has been proven here to change my mind(or others) that are skeptical of man made global warming.
Far too many variables. We have not been keeping records long enough in my opinion to come to the conclusion that this is a problem and that we can do anything about it for that matter.
I remember "Smog alerts" when I was a kid. We have not had one in over 30 years that I am aware of. Leaded fuel is gone. Cars put out very little pollution now. Many factories are gone, and the ones that are left have cleaned up what they produce.
The United States emmisions have declined at a annual average rate of 1.4 % since 2005. And correct me if im wrong, but the Energy Information Administration predicts it will stay well below 2005 levels over the next 20 years!
So if anyone wants to "bag" on the United States for not giving money and participating in the Paris Accord they need to go hound China for starters.
Participation in the Paris Accord would be fundamentally unfair to American tax payers. It would require transfer of BILLIONS of our hard earned dollars to other countries through the Green climate fund.
It would further apply emmisions-reduction targets and timelines to the United States that DO NOT APPLY TO OTHER COUNTRIES!!
In fact, the agreement as negotiated would COMMIT the United States to reduce greenhouse gases by ANOTHER 26-28% below 2005 levels by the year 2025!!!
Then in the meantime, it allows countries such as CHINA TO INCREASE EMISSIONS FOR YEARS TO COME!
So read this a few times, let it sink in, and tell me if you think its fair PSLReefer!! If you can understand it. Because the way I see it, its not fair to me or anyone else working and paying taxes in this country............

“Leaded fuel is gone” Oh I remember all of the discussions that take place when the environmental movement begun to fight against the lead content in the gasoline – it’s the end of the world – it cost 100 000 jobs – the car will never work without lead – and catalyst – idiotically – it will cost 100 000 jobs a year. Oh those were the Days :)


One big misunderstanding - the Paris agreement state that each country by themselves put up the goals - no one else set them or have any influences of them!

But its up to you if you want to be a part of it or not. No one else care - other countries will take the lead and develop the tools what will be needed

But sit down and think a little. France have taken a decision that after 2040 - its forbidden to sell new cars that use fossil fuels. The conservative "Brexit" government of Great Britain have done the same - other countries will follow. Most countries in Europe has the goal to be CO2 neutral around 2050.

Of cause – you can still produce cars for fossil fuels and produce oil, diesel and gasoline for your own market but in 30 – 40 years – there is no one outside the US that will buy them. Google “the Kodak Moment” and you will understand what’s happen when a company does not understand where the technic will go and how fast it will happen. The same happen to a Swedish company – Facit – world leading in mechanical calculators - back in the early 70:ties when they miss calculate :))) the power of electronic calculators

Sincerely Lasse

 

[senne76]

Aside from the global warming effect (which I think is happening at a very fast rate). Everyone knows how fossil fuels were made and that there is only a limited amount of fossil fuels available on earth(I read somewhere it was quite less than they estimated) . So even the non-believers should realise that we have to search another energy source.

 

[tenurepro]

Not sure where all the conspiracy theories are coming from and why they persist. almost all scientists in the field agree that the recent average increase in surface, ocean and fresh water lake temps are caused by anthropogenic emissions of green house gases. Do people really think that someone took a few hundred earth and atmospheric scientists, physicists, biologists, and paid them to come up with human caused climate change? For what purpose? Sure, some people have made a name for themselves by campaigning on climate change. But that is just politics and media. The science is overwhelming clear on this issue. Are there skeptics? Sure, but they publish their stuff on their websites; this grey literature is not peer reviewed, and shouldn't be trusted. If you get sick, would you seek medical advice from the guru of a self published website or a real doctor with an MD, or better yet, a consortium of MDs...

Most of us are not trained in science and research, but we should be thankful for the few that are.
And while we shouldn't give blind trust, and we should be reasonably critical and fact check; but if most INDEPENDENT scientists have done research that supports a certain conclusion, then that is reason enough to trust.

The other comments about fairness when it comes to cutting emissions (USA vs China vs others). That is unfortunate but we can not expect all countries to do what is best for the planet. But if we all act out of self interest (i.e. Why should we cut, pay more, etc, if China is not doing the same), then we end up with a tragedy of the commons. We all lose. It not always easy to lead, and sometimes sacrifices have to be made, but there is a problem and we need to solve it. Hiding our heads in the sand is the worst possible solution.

 

[PSLReefer]

PSLReefer, Funny. Coming from a guy that has provided NOTHING but replies to what everyone else has posted on here. Just because one does not go with the majority does not mean they are incorrect. NOTHING has been proven here to change my mind(or others) that are skeptical of man made global warming.
Far too many variables. We have not been keeping records long enough in my opinion to come to the conclusion that this is a problem and that we can do anything about it for that matter.
I remember "Smog alerts" when I was a kid. We have not had one in over 30 years that I am aware of. Leaded fuel is gone. Cars put out very little pollution now. Many factories are gone, and the ones that are left have cleaned up what they produce.
The United States emmisions have declined at a annual average rate of 1.4 % since 2005. And correct me if im wrong, but the Energy Information Administration predicts it will stay well below 2005 levels over the next 20 years!
So if anyone wants to "bag" on the United States for not giving money and participating in the Paris Accord they need to go hound China for starters.
Participation in the Paris Accord would be fundamentally unfair to American tax payers. It would require transfer of BILLIONS of our hard earned dollars to other countries through the Green climate fund.
It would further apply emmisions-reduction targets and timelines to the United States that DO NOT APPLY TO OTHER COUNTRIES!!
In fact, the agreement as negotiated would COMMIT the United States to reduce greenhouse gases by ANOTHER 26-28% below 2005 levels by the year 2025!!!
Then in the meantime, it allows countries such as CHINA TO INCREASE EMISSIONS FOR YEARS TO COME!
So read this a few times, let it sink in, and tell me if you think its fair PSLReefer!! If you can understand it. Because the way I see it, its not fair to me or anyone else working and paying taxes in this country............

Thanks again you have proven my point. You still haven't stayed one proven substantiated fact, just posting based on what you "heard." Where do you get these so called facts? Please provide CREDIBLE sources, like you learned in college? By the way, wiki is not considered a credible source by higher education institutions.

 

[ca1ore]

Three points:

1. Planet will be fine, and will recover; humans just won't be around to see it.
2. The people who study this for a living are almost unanimous in sounding the alarm; versus some yahoo who steps out onto his balcony and observes that it's cooler than normal today.
3. If there is even a small chance of a climate catastrophe, we should do all we can to prevent it.

Of course, we won't because as a collective species humans are stupid. Just smart enough to dominate the planet, but not insightful enough to actually take care of it.

Ok, I guess that was four points ......

 

[Lasse]

Three points:

Of course, we won't because as a collective species humans are stupid. Just smart enough to dominate the planet, but not insightful enough to actually take care of it.

Some of the human species has the insight - it's called evolution :)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[ReeferBob]

Three points:

1. Planet will be fine, and will recover; humans just won't be around to see it.
2. The people who study this for a living are almost unanimous in sounding the alarm; versus some yahoo who steps out onto his balcony and observes that it's cooler than normal today.
3. If there is even a small chance of a climate catastrophe, we should do all we can to prevent it.

Of course, we won't because as a collective species humans are stupid. Just smart enough to dominate the planet, but not insightful enough to actually take care of it.

Ok, I guess that was four points ......

#3 sounds like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Humans are not stupid, we have a will to survive just like all animals. We also have a narcissistic streak also evolved for survival. Too many people want humans to not be true to their evolution. Why is that? Why do you expect humans to give up something they need for survival, namely money, to advance something that they do not agree with? Have you seen (read history) what happens when people are forced to do things against their will? How do you think we will get to places like our jobs without vehicles to get us there? How will we exist without electricity to run our homes? It is so very easy to say "mother Earth must live!" but there are practical limitations to the changes the government-backed scientists crowd are demanding.

#2 is deceptive. It would be more true if you say, "Those with governmental funding tend to find the results that the government wants them to, and they make up most of the people that study this.". It is a well-known fact that those that speak out within the "scientific" community against global-whatever are frequently ostracized, criticized and ridiculed (what is the tolerant ideology again?). Many still do, many have peer reviewed papers that refute the government backed scientists conclusions. It isn't the data that is in question, it is the interpretation of that data which is political in nature. You cannot have an interpretation without politics and beliefs entering into the equation.

 

[Lasse]

#

#2 is deceptive. It would be more true if you say, "Those with governmental funding tend to find the results that the government wants them to, and they make up most of the people that study this.". It is a well-known fact that those that speak out within the "scientific" community against global-whatever are frequently ostracized, criticized and ridiculed (what is the tolerant ideology again?). Many still do, many have peer reviewed papers that refute the government backed scientists conclusions. It isn't the data that is in question, it is the interpretation of that data which is political in nature. You cannot have an interpretation without politics and beliefs entering into the equation.

You mean something like this

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

Sincerely Lasse

 

[ReeferBob]

You mean something like this

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

Sincerely Lasse

You are really going to quote a far, far left wing progressive source in a highly partisan matter? This is a good one too and goes directly to the "heart" of what I am talking about. It is a politically motivated interpretation of a factual event. Much (maybe all?) of it has been debunked/explained including faked documents as part of the release. It is all in the spin! Spin-on!

 

[Lasse]

You are really going to quote a far, far left wing progressive source in a highly partisan matter? This is a good one too and goes directly to the "heart" of what I am talking about. It is a politically motivated interpretation of a factual event. Much (maybe all?) of it has been debunked/explained including faked documents as part of the release. It is all in the spin! Spin-on!

And the Hertland institute is a highly bipartisan and neutral organisation? You have to forgive me - I´m not american - I´m a dumb Swedish cook but if I read what they are writing - they seems not to be so much neutral

But please show me the evidence for what you are saying about a big government plot, not only an former US government plot - a complete plot including all governments of the world - excluding Syria and Nigaragua. It is 97 % of the Worlds climate scientist that agree with the idea that the Global warming/Climate Changing is caused by man (If this with a global goverment plot should be true – it’s wonderful – at least one question that unite all governments – fantastic :))

I should love to see that but I need some evidence - All of the posts denying manmade climate change here (in this thread) can be cocked together to one point – we have not enough off facts for binding the CO2 rise (with 25% since 1950) and the temperature rise (with 1.5 degree C the last 150 years) to manmade emissions. But meanwhile – I have only seen statements about government plots – not a single evidence for this – just statement – so please deliver the evidence for this. Otherwise – at least for me – it’s not enough of facts for me to believe it.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[ReeferBob]

And the Hertland institute is a highly bipartisan and neutral organisation? You have to forgive me - I´m not american - I´m a dumb Swedish cook but if I read what they are writing - they seems not to be so much neutral

But please show me the evidence for what you are saying about a big government plot, not only an former US government plot - a complete plot including all governments of the world - excluding Syria and Nigaragua. It is 97 % of the Worlds climate scientist that agree with the idea that the Global warming/Climate Changing is caused by man (If this with a global goverment plot should be true – it’s wonderful – at least one question that unite all governments – fantastic :))

I should love to see that but I need some evidence - All of the posts denying manmade climate change here (in this thread) can be cocked together to one point – we have not enough off facts for binding the CO2 rise (with 25% since 1950) and the temperature rise (with 1.5 degree C the last 150 years) to manmade emissions. But meanwhile – I have only seen statements about government plots – not a single evidence for this – just statement – so please deliver the evidence for this. Otherwise – at least for me – it’s not enough of facts for me to believe it.

Sincerely Lasse

Of course it's not that is my point. Data can be interpreted any way you want. Lies, dang lies and statistics. The argument against man-made global whatever is very compelling. The argument for it is based on computer models that are almost always wrong. Who cares if 97% agree? That in unto itself does not make it valid. If you want to jump on that bandwagon to be in the majority, so be it.

 

[ca1ore]

Of course it's not that is my point. Data can be interpreted any way you want. Lies, dang lies and statistics. The argument against man-made global whatever is very compelling. The argument for it is based on computer models that are almost always wrong. Who cares if 97% agree? That in unto itself does not make it valid. If you want to jump on that bandwagon to be in the majority, so be it.

Mine is a more subtle point. As example ...... I present you with a small wooden box with a switch on top. Flip the switch and there is a 97% chance that the box will open and you get $1,000; BUT, there's a 3% chance that you will be blown to bits. Do you flip the switch? Who knows if the scientists are right or not. Like I said, I tend to believe them over somebody who espouses an uneducated opinion, but they could be wrong. Even if there is only a tiny chance they are right, the potentially devastating impact means (to me at least) that we should be doing more now than we are.

 

[GatorGuys]

The earth goes through more cycles than we even know exist... We know that the earth warmer than it is now. We also know there were times it was cooler.

I think there are far more pressing issues than worrying about global warming. We are going to kill off the planet with our destructive habits of littering, deforestation, and wars long before global warming will take effect.

So many people are concerned about C02 in the atmosphere. We know that there were periods of time that had more. People are overlooking the fact that we have replaced hundreds of thousands of acres of land with asphalt - which traps more heat than the tiny amount of C02 that may be present in the atmosphere. To think global warming has 'one-cause' is shortsighted and bad science.

 

[ReeferBob]

Mine is a more subtle point. As example ...... I present you with a small wooden box with a switch on top. Flip the switch and there is a 97% chance that the box will open and you get $1,000; BUT, there's a 3% chance that you will be blown to bits. Do you flip the switch? Who knows if the scientists are right or not. Like I said, I tend to believe them over somebody who espouses an uneducated opinion, but they could be wrong. Even if there is only a tiny chance they are right, the potentially devastating impact means (to me at least) that we should be doing more now than we are.

You give the answer the government wants you to give. It is called brainwashing. Are you really trying to say that since supposedly 97% of scientists believe this that there is a 97% chance it is true? Really that is probably the least scientific explanation in this entire thread. And where are you getting that the 3% are uneducated? A lot of them were in the 97% camp, saw the data, and decided to follow their conscience.

If you truly think like you say you think, why not dedicate your life to making the Earth a better place for the children? Start living a minimal lifestyle and donate all extra cash to the climate-change industry.

 

[Lasse]

The earth goes through more cycles than we even know exist... We know that the earth warmer than it is now. We also know there were times it was cooler.

I think there are far more pressing issues than worrying about global warming. We are going to kill off the planet with our destructive habits of littering, deforestation, and wars long before global warming will take effect.

So many people are concerned about C02 in the atmosphere. We know that there were periods of time that had more. People are overlooking the fact that we have replaced hundreds of thousands of acres of land with asphalt - which traps more heat than the tiny amount of C02 that may be present in the atmosphere. To think global warming has 'one-cause' is shortsighted and bad science.

They are all conected - Fighting for one thing does not exclude fighting for other things - but this thread is about Global Warming

Concerning CO2 levels look at facts - they have never been higher for a long period of time.

se here https://www.scientificamerican.com/...pike-to-a-level-not-seen-since-the-dinosaurs/ From the article - my bold

The amount of atmospheric CO2 has already increased in the last two centuries at a rate not seen in the geologic record, Foster said. Scientists believe the CO2 levels now in the atmosphere haven’t been seen in 3 million years. And the planet is warming as a result of the boom in CO2 from industrialization, almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 150 years.

During my lifetime - the CO2 level has risen with more than 25 %. It goes very fast just now. For the moment (2017) it’s around 410 ppm – 1950 – around 320 ppm (yea its more than 25 % rise but I use the lower figure in order not to be accused for cherry picking)

Sincerely Lasse