 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 589/600) |
|
jmclemore
|
JAN 14, 01:18 PM
|
|
Government is the wrong custodian of environmental
Education and implementation. It does not matter which
party is in control, they other party will claim the issue
is being politicized. (Not enough trust in system)
People will accept sacrifices if the out come or end result
is achievable. Neither side has shown results of current
efforts having a positive impact on the state problem.
(Not enough trust in plan)
We are not doing enough and that is why we are not
seeing or hearing about measurable changes in global
climate change. But more policies, Regulation, tax dollars
and fines will get us there.. That sounds a lot like - We've
done a lot of work on your car to get it back to running right,
and have not found the exact cause for the poor running
condition. But with a little more money and time we'll get there.
(Not enough trust in the Mechanic)
The Government is split on climate change
The People are split on climate change
The Scientist (supposedly) agree on climate change
They all agree "the climate remains unchanged"
Both have their climate mantras and it is exactly the
same -
We have no affect and "climate keeps doing what it does"
We have an affect and "climate keeps doing what it does"
After all the money and regulations the weather still
disobeys. The only successes that are pointed to
when the "justification" for Environmental policies,
are in the areas of air quality, water pollution and
food contamination. But global temperatures? not a
reference to a care guidenada
The best way to move society in any direction continues
to be by the "carrot and stick" method. Government grants
issued to organizations and companies who produce the best
measurable results, not only provides an incentive but also
establishes accountability for their results. The public outcry
would demand brutal penalties for "bad or fraudulent" results.
With methods of reward for results, they will continue to allow
their politics to influence their findings, but they will also pay
a price when "politics" contaminated their results.
The age of Baffling the public with BS should be ended and
replaced with a show me the results expectation.
The primary reason we should stop publicly funding climate
change studies come from the climate change scientist themselves.
"It's Settled Science"
So it's time to shift the cost of climate change studies back
private groups, industries and individuals and redirect that
portion of federal funding to incentivize results.
So You guys who claim it's settled science, you win.
I agree. And now it's time to get results.
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
JAN 14, 05:52 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by newf:
No the point is the earth is changing more quickly than expected and that the change is largely caused by man.
<snip>
. |
|
That is an unproven assumption.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 15, 07:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
JAN 18, 09:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|
newf
|
JAN 18, 10:58 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Hudini:
That is an unproven assumption. |
|
How's the air pollution in China these days?
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
JAN 18, 07:21 PM
|
|
|
Today it's 97. Do you have a point or a witty cartoon that proves nothing?
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 18, 08:46 PM
|
|
That's not proof.. It's not yet been proven.. It's not "settled science".
?
What would it look like if there were "proof" that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the most significant cause of recent and current global warming, and that global temperatures could be capped or limited (close to their current levels) by achieving reductions in the amount of human greenhouse gas emissions worldwide?
How would someone who is coming at this from the same general direction of skepticism as Hudini be able to know that it had moved from conjecture or hypothesis, all the way to "proven" or "settled science"..?
It would be interesting (I think) for me to get a clearer understanding of what the skeptics consider to be the more reliable sources of information that firm up their perceptions that all this has not yet been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Just for the sake of discussion. I am not an activist or a campaigner of any kind. My personal outlay for political contributions (PACs, candidates, projects, organizations; etc.) is very minimal. Of course, all I have (fundamentally) are my own opinions about it. I claim no particularly relevant scientific credentials.
If the evidence for all this is only suggestive, but not conclusive--not yet proven--have the skeptics had any thoughts about what are the likely trends for the global distribution of heat and temperatures, as CO2 and other gases from human activities continue to be emitted into the atmosphere at or above the current rate of emissions from all around the globe?
In other words, if human greenhouse gas emissions are not already the most significant cause of recent and current global warming, what is the fallout if these kinds of gas molecules continue to be released into the atmosphere for an indefinite period ahead, at flow rates into the atmosphere that match or exceed the current levels? Will this then become the most significant cause of global warming in the not very distant future--well before the end of the current century, and within the lifetimes of some of the younger members of this forum?[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-18-2017).]
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
JAN 18, 09:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
newf
|
JAN 19, 07:57 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Hudini:
Today it's 97. Do you have a point or a witty cartoon that proves nothing? |
|
No sorry just references to a pile of actual science. Sound bites, cherry picked data and links to fake news sites are more the deniers game.
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
JAN 19, 09:04 PM
|
|
|
You are virtue signaling, that's all. I'd bet money you and everyone of the alarmists live the very same way you have always lived. You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk? Have you done your part to reduce your carbon footprint or are you just throwing stones in your glass house?
|
|
|
|
