Are you a global warming skeptic?

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
You mean this:

JUNE 25, 2016 / NEWS PRESS RELEASES
DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM DRAFTING MEETING CONCLUDES

Climate Change and Clean Energy: Moving beyond the “all of the above” energy approach in the 2012 platform, the 2016 platform draft re-frames the urgency of climate change as a central challenge of our time, already impacting American communities and calling for generating 50 percent clean electricity within the next ten years. The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement. Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.


Interesting.
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
For a minute, I thought the idea was to criminalize stupidity. Now I see, it's about criminalizing corporate malfeasance.
As for skepticism? I have said for a long time, "You can't burn 100,000 years worth of sequestered carbon in 100 years without causing changes."
The ice caps are showing effects. I keep checking the bayou for water level rise.
If the oceans aren't up by 8 feet in the next 20 years, no problem. I will die before I have fish in the front yard.
 

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
703
Climate is a long term average of weather conditions and climate is not a static quantity.

Climate change is normal and caused by various factors which may -or may not- be affected by human activity. Over the past 25 years, there have been large and numerous volcanic eruptions which disturb the atmosphere. On the side of human contribution, more of the earth' surface being paved over for streets, cars, and buildings and all the building increases heat absorption.

The construction industry doesn't want to stop building, the car industry doesn't want people to stop driving, the oil companies don't want people buying less gas, so what is the solution to stop the alleged man-made climate change?
 
Last edited:

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
For a minute, I thought the idea was to criminalize stupidity. Now I see, it's about criminalizing corporate malfeasance.
As for skepticism? I have said for a long time, "You can't burn 100,000 years worth of sequestered carbon in 100 years without causing changes."
The ice caps are showing effects. I keep checking the bayou for water level rise.
If the oceans aren't up by 8 feet in the next 20 years, no problem. I will die before I have fish in the front yard.
:D :D

There was a cute show on MSNBC tonight about the ice in the arctic. The Eskimos were having a hard time finding a place with thick enough ice to pull their whales out of the water. Miami tomorrow.
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
The Eskimos were having a hard time finding a place with thick enough ice to pull their whales out of the water.
??? The last time I saw an Eskimo pull a whale out, he pulled it on to land.
Has all the land melted, too?
 

Robin Mitchell

Joined Oct 25, 2009
819
For me I always prefer to do my own research on such topics. I dont doubt that global warming is happening but is it as a result of human intervention? Not a clue for me because there are so many factors that can result in an increase of temperature. Interestingly an increase in C02 emissions does not result in a warmer environment (its gasses such as methane and water vapor which are big causers).

Also, when they say that 97% of scientists agree you need to understand the scientific community to realize what that figure means. It means that 3% of the believers actually do their own research and deductions where the rest are more like sheep and assistants who just re-enforce the argument without actually looking for themselves.

And bear this in mind too:
500 years ago people suggested that the world was not at the center of the universe. The whole scientific community laughed at them and said "rubbish".
200 years ago people suggested that traveling more than 40mph would not destroy the human body. The whole scientific community laughed at them and said "rubbish".
100 years ago people suggested that the plumb pudding model of matter was incorrect. The whole scientific community laughed at them and said "rubbish".
Scientists said eggs are good for you. Then they said it was bad. Then they said it was good. Then they said they where bad. Now they say they are good.
They said that eating reheated vegetables can cause cancers, then they retracted their statements.

Even today the community is very much against alternative thinking which is why on the whole I really don't like the scientific community at all.

I'm not saying I am a skeptic, I just like to look at the evidence myself instead of having a community tell me what is right. I will tell you one thing, my fingers are crossed for that EM Drive. I so hope its real and not a fake!
 

Robin Mitchell

Joined Oct 25, 2009
819
As I quote myself @shortbus
"I dont doubt that global warming is happening but is it as a result of human intervention?"

The amount of CO2 that a major volcanic eruption can produce is staggering! But what makes volcano's more damaging than CO2 emissions by humans is that they also release sulpherous compounds, methane and plenty more greenhouse gasses. All it would take is for yellow stone to go off and just like that everything mankind produced looks like a "puff".

Also, the temperature rise leads the CO2 rise, not the other way round!
 

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
As I quote myself @shortbus
"I dont doubt that global warming is happening but is it as a result of human intervention?"

The amount of CO2 that a major volcanic eruption can produce is staggering! But what makes volcano's more damaging than CO2 emissions by humans is that they also release sulpherous compounds, methane and plenty more greenhouse gasses. All it would take is for yellow stone to go off and just like that everything mankind produced looks like a "puff".

Also, the temperature rise leads the CO2 rise, not the other way round!
There seems to be some doubt about the volcanoes.
http://www.earthmagazine.org/articl...-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science
Do you have a source?
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
The amount of CO2 that a major volcanic eruption can produce is staggering! But what makes volcano's more damaging than CO2 emissions by humans is that they also release sulpherous compounds, methane and plenty more greenhouse gasses. All it would take is for yellow stone to go off and just like that everything mankind produced looks like a "puff".
I agree with what your saying. Water vapor is much more damaging to temperature rise. But there is no way to tax or stop water vapor, so CO2 gets the blame.
 
Top