Trump will drop climate change from National Security Strategy. Because he's stupid.

[Farmer Br0wn]

You want to see evidence of climare change that in no way involves the weather?

That's not the argument I put forward, but you already knew that.

I'm simply not going to accept fairly common seasonal weather events as some sort of evidence of climate change.

The fact that a monsoon rain season was put forward as some sort of evidence of climate change tells me that proponents of man made climate change theory WANT to believe in man made climate change regardless of what the evidence actually shows.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

There is you moron, do some studying, the google is your friend.

I already have. No such person exists.

 

[Rational Poster]

global warming is liberal hoax. all of the politicians paid by fossil fuel companies say so. climate goes in a cycle and such.

ACTUALLY it's giant volcanos under the ocean.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

<Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo>

Soil erosion is your evidence of climate change?

You're aware soil erosion and small islands "sinking" into the sea over time is a natural occurrence that has been happening long before humanity ever existed, correct?

Stop right there. I need evidence of this erosion before humanity existed. Once I get that evidence from you, even though I might be able to google my way into it, I’m not taking a step further in this conversation. You of all posters can see what kind of predicament I’m in, right?

 

[Nth-degree]

Aah the right wing mantra of private sector always more efficent ..cool

It is one of the main schools of thought, what be your mantra?

 

[Der Eisbär]

lol, well that shows youve made 0 attempts at any real research on the matter. you're just swept along by which ever pundit you've chosen to listen to that day.



well....looks like you have it all figured out. you're certainly qualified to make such claims.



regulated by earth's systems? you mean like your chlorine in the pool? piss in it enough, and even your chlorine wont work.



well shucks. i guess that settles it.



nah youre silly. youre talking out of your ass.

china is in stage 3 right now. their birth rate will inevitably drop, as will the rest of the world's in time. the world population is expected to level off around 12 billion, and begin shrinking. we'll all be like japan and italy, with a higher death rate than birth rate.

Don't waste your time with that guy. I've already been through the rounds with him. He watched some wacky youtube video made by a climate denier that convinced him the next ice age is coming. He will ignore and throw out all scientific data and analysis and keep repeating his retarded claims without addressing yours.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Don't waste your time with that guy. I've already been through the rounds with him. He watched some wacky youtube video made by a climate denier that convinced him the next ice age is coming. He will ignore and throw out all scientific data and analysis and keep repeating his retarded claims without addressing yours.

well....time magazine in the 1970s did say that a scientist said the earth is cooling. how can one argue?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Stop right there. I need evidence of this erosion before humanity existed. Once I get that evidence from you, even though I might be able to google my way into it, I’m not taking a step further in this conversation. You of all posters can see what kind of predicament I’m in, right?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213305415300023

The results yield insight into the relative influence on soil erosion of human activities (both prehistoric and historical) versus natural geomorphodynamic processes controlled by climate and neotectonics.

I'm glad I could clear up your confusion.

 

[21 Savage]

Bill Burr has a great idea for climate issues. He brings it up in every special.

[Yt]

Bill fell off hard tbh

 

[Scheme]

lol, well that shows youve made 0 attempts at any real research on the matter. you're just swept along by which ever pundit you've chosen to listen to that day.

Show me one example of anyone even bringing up what I said. How can my opinion be based on a pundit's if no one ever talks about it?

well....looks like you have it all figured out. you're certainly qualified to make such claims.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

regulated by earth's systems? you mean like your chlorine in the pool? piss in it enough, and even your chlorine wont work.

False equivalency. Prove to me that any permanent damage is being done. The Earth has many cycles, the water cycle, the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, etc. These help regulate and balance the Earth over time. Show me why temporary burning of fossil fuels is going to lead to permanent damage, rather than being regulated by Earth's systems.

well shucks. i guess that settles it.

The real issue with burning fossil fuels at the rate we are doing it is the fact that they will run out, and then we will not have enough energy to power everything we need. I still support green energy, but from a different motivation.

nah youre silly. youre talking out of your ass.

china is in stage 3 right now. their birth rate will inevitably drop, as will the rest of the world's in time. the world population is expected to level off around 12 billion, and begin shrinking. we'll all be like japan and italy, with a higher death rate than birth rate.

12 billion is overpopulation. 7 billion is overpopulation. The optimum amount of people on Earth to guarantee the bare minimum for a decent life is said to be about 1.5 - 2 billion. And that is not taking into consideration non-renewable resources.

 

[Seano]

Too many people profiting from global warming. Thats why people aren't taking it seriously anymore.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Show me one example of anyone even bringing up what I said. How can my opinion be based on a pundit's if no one ever talks about it?

what you said is almost nonsensical. it shows that you havent even listened to your opposition's point of view thoroughly. youre dismissing their claims without even know their details.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

or an acknowledgment that experts are experts. you shouldnt blindly listen to anyone, but ive evaluated the science for myself, and realize that i am not qualified to debunk decades of research from my armchair.

False equivalency. Prove to me that any permanent damage is being done. The Earth has many cycles, the water cycle, the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, etc. These help regulate and balance the Earth over time.

the earth is going to be just fine, regardless. its us that we need to worry about. why were 1 million people recently displaced in bangladesh? where will they go? when they get there, do you think the current inhabitants will be pleased with their arrival?

many plants and animals can adapt with earth's normal cycles. they change slowly. scientists in many cases are now alleging that many species of plant will be facing such a rapid temp change, that theyll not be able to adapt quickly enough.

Show me why temporary burning of fossil fuels is going to lead to permanent damage, rather than being regulated by Earth's systems.

it wont cause permanent damage. and permanent damage of what?

12 billion is overpopulation. 7 billion is overpopulation. The optimum amount of people on Earth to guarantee the bare minimum for a decent life is said to be about 1.5 - 2 billion. And that is not taking into consideration non-renewable resources.

did you pull that figure out of your ass?

were are still within the physiological density of earth, but just barely. 12 billion wont be good, if we reach that level. its almost certain to happen, though. not much we can do about it.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Too many people profiting from global warming. Thats why people aren't taking it seriously anymore.

lots of profiteering from cancer. it doesnt mean that its fake.

"never let a good crisis go to waste."

 

[Seano]

lots of profiteering from cancer. it doesnt mean that its fake.

"never let a good crisis go to waste."

Never said it was fake. No need to add things to my post.

I'm saying that people can't take guys who drive hummers seriously when they lecture us on the environment..

 

[Scheme]

what you said is almost nonsensical. it shows that you havent even listened to your opposition's point of view thoroughly. youre dismissing their claims without even know their details.

I didn't dismiss anything. When did I say global warming wasn't real, or that global warming didn't have negative components? I am simply introducing the fact that the Earth does have cycles, we are at the end of a cycle and it will eventually go back down, something no one talks about.

or an acknowledgment that experts are experts. you shouldnt blindly listen to anyone, but ive evaluated the science for myself, and realize that i am not qualified to debunk decades of research from my armchair.

Why do you assume I just blindly listened to anyone? I formed all these opinions based on my own research. Which of the following main claims from my first post are untrue, I will happily back it up with evidence:
1) The earth will eventually start cooling
2) We are running out of fossil fuels
3) The earth has various systems to regulate itself

the earth is going to be just fine, regardless. its us that we need to worry about. why were 1 million people recently displaced in bangladesh? where will they go? when they get there, do you think the current inhabitants will be pleased with their arrival?

many plants and animals can adapt with earth's normal cycles. they change slowly. scientists in many cases are now alleging that many species of plant will be facing such a rapid temp change, that theyll not be able to adapt quickly enough.

Again, maybe if fossil fuels were an unlimited resource we would do permanent damage to the Earth. But as it stands, fossil fuels are set to run out in the next century or so.

it wont cause permanent damage. and permanent damage of what?

Most people claim that global warming causes permanent damage to the Earth, I simply ask them why they think that is, and why it isn't irreversible. My claim is that we don't know whether the effects of global warming will be permanent, and claim that Earth's carbon cycle will take care of it, barring other things (like deforestation, which is a much more realistic issue).

did you pull that figure out of your ass?

were are still within the physiological density of earth, but just barely. 12 billion wont be good, if we reach that level. its almost certain to happen, though. not much we can do about it.

http://dieoff.org/page99.htm

To summarize this brief essay, determination of an "optimum" world population size involves social decisions about the life styles to be lived and the distribution of those life styles among individuals in the population. To us it seems reasonable to assume that, until cultures and technology change radically, the optimum number of people to exist simultaneously km in the vicinity of 1.5 to 2 billion people. That number, if achieved reasonably soon, would also likely permit the maximum number of Homo sapiens to live a good life over the long run. But suppose we have underestimated the optimum and it actually is 4 billion? Since the present population is over 5.5 billion and growing rapidly, the policy implications of our conclusions are still clear.

Also, just look at the lengths we have to go to sustain the current population. Look at factory farming, deforestation, global seafood decreases (which are said to run out by 2050), carbon emissions (because people need energy), world hunger, etc. It's obvious to anyone whose looking that the earth is overpopulation, and if you say otherwise please explain to me why you think that it isn't.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Make an undisputable clsim about anything?

The Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West.

Living creatures will eventually die.

On Earth, gravity pulls objects at a rate of 9.8 m/s (squared).

Humans require water to live.

Making an undisputable claim is actually quite easy, if you're looking for the truth.

While trying to do so have a think about the level of proof you require.

Any usable proof will do. No one on this entire form has brought forth evidence that a "climate refugee" even exists.

No such person exists. The reason leftists push this fantasy is because it's an easy excuse for a power grab by the "man made climate change" industrial complex.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

maybe because the pentagon itself has been saying since the 90s that climate change is a national security threat?

Cause we all know spies are the most trustworthy people on Earth....

 

[Der Eisbär]

Cause we all know spies are the most trustworthy people on Earth....

The pentagon = spies? What? Who is supposed to set the national security strategy if not the pentagon?

 

[Falsedawn]

Why is "driving a hummer" always the goto climate denialist tactic? Has anyone seen a hummer in the last decade?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213305415300023




I'm glad I could clear up your confusion.

What significant event happened in SW Tennessee and could happen in the future as well. This event caused the ground to sink in numerous places, rivers (Mississippi) to reroute and overflow it’s banks. The soil and ground there are like mush, nothing holding it up. No wonder the islands are sinking. Did you read your own source? That article (the abstract I read) had to do with human interaction with the landscape. Like agriculture and harvesting of timber.

Nowadays we have rules in place to combat this type of human error. Like if there is a new road or widening of a road there needs to be plans and rules in place to combat the change in landscape and the potential for rain runoff and drainage to cause significant damage to the surrounding area.