Anyone on the right believe in climate change here?

The world is cooling at a rate of three degrees every twelve thousand years.
 
The people ITT trying to obfuscate are idiots. The science IS incredibly simple. It's called the greenhouse effect. More CO2 in the atmosphere means hotter temperatures globally. There is no debate on this. Co2 is also absorbed by trees and the ocean, and other carbon sinks - these sinks are full. Hence more Co2 in the atmosphere.

Done. We need more sinks, (trees) and less co2. Forrest fires "empty the sink" into the atmosphere.

Now either you decide to put a trillion dollar plan in place to move off fossil fuels or accept mass droughts and the other highly predictable and obvious consequences that warmer weather will bring.

Sorry but no it is not that simple.

You need to define what you are trying to address and show that you know that addressing your singular point (man made CO2) will actually impact the issue. Otherwise it is who you are trying to obfuscate the issue.

Global Warming could be impacted by several factors which science does not deny. So if you have 2 or more contributors you must prove (or at least show some evidence) that removing/reducing the impact of one will actually have any result.

You pointing to one issue (man made) and saying 'look we cannot deny it has an impact' and pretending that is the debate is simply disingenuous and what the left does all the time. That is why this issue has become political because you refuse to talk about the issue and keep redefining it to a point no one is arguing with while pretending they are. You refuse to address the real topic which is in my question quoted below and which will continue to be ignored...


...We know for fact that in the days of the dinosaurs the planet was much warmer and more lush. All natural resources were in abundance. We then had a couple events outside the normal planet cycles (volcano's, meteors) that forced a rapid cooling on the planet. An Ice Age.

If you look at a graph and plot the planets temperature pre Ice Age and the period in between it look like 'V' but with the right arm (current date) much short then the left (pre Ice Age).

So tell me how do you know and provide evidence that if man never evolved and the planet stayed completely wild, how you know the planet would not naturally be progressing back to the same temperatures it was at pre Ice Age? When everything suggests that is where it was naturally prior?
 
The world is cooling at a rate of three degrees every twelve thousand years.
So let's grant that for shits and giggles. Would it not then be quite alarming that the world is now suddenly and completely breaking from that in perfect correlation to the fossils burned, making every year hotter?
 
I find it bizarre that so many European nations are phasing out nuclear power while simultaneously legislating against fossil fuels and being in a dubious relationship with Russia.

Not us. Finland just did a contract with Russian Rosatom for a nuclear plant, despite the EU sanctions and the climate against nuclear power in EU.

Some Finnish people are crying: "Never a Russian nuclear plant on Finnish soil!!", while ignoring the fact that we've had a functioning Russian nuclear plant on Finnish soil for 39 years and it has been working fine.
 
So let's grant that for shits and giggles. Would it not then be quite alarming that the world is now suddenly and completely breaking from that in perfect correlation to the fossils burned, making every year hotter?

I have it on good authority that the world is cooling, so I'm not worried at all.
 
Voting Clinton because you believe in climate change shows the desperate need to overhaul this political duopoly.

Well I'm not going to vote Clinton because I don't believe in many of the things in her platform.
 
Nobody is denying climate change, they are arguing the cause and the solution for it
 
Not us. Finland just did a contract with Russian Rosatom for a nuclear plant, despite the EU sanctions and the climate against nuclear power in EU.

Some Finnish people are crying: "Never a Russian nuclear plant on Finnish soil!!", while ignoring the fact that we've had a functioning Russian nuclear plant on Finnish soil for 39 years and it has been working fine.

Just curious why not French or US power plant?

I'm thrilled with the Russian record with all things nuclear.
 
Nobody is denying climate change, they are arguing the cause and the solution for it
Every time this bizarre and flatulent deflection is expelled, more hot air is released into the atmosphere. It's such a fantastically bad try. Yes, the climate changes...the earth spins as well, and there's a moon too by garsh.
 
Every time this bizarre and flatulent deflection is expelled, more hot air is released into the atmosphere. It's such a fantastically bad try. Yes, the climate changes...the earth spins as well, and there's a moon too by garsh.


Vs you guys who just say "You don't believe it's real!!!"
 
Well I'm not going to vote Clinton because I don't believe in many of the things in her platform.

Right, so if you consider climate change to be of great concern, you're left out to dry by the two party duopoly.
 
The amount of time humans have existed (50k ish years) is 5/100000th's of the amount of time life has existed (2.5 billion years)
Talking about Earth's atmosphere and using a segment of time that small isn't very good sampling.
Also, why is it 400k-800k years back ALWAYS the amount of time used to discuss our co2 levels? Is there something special about that period? Or is it that if we go back any further, co2 levels are WAY higher(up to a factor of ten) than current?
If we're looking at average levels throughout history instead of cherrypicking periods of time, we are well below average.

But seriously speaking, this is a HUGE problem and all humanity needs to wake up for this.

Never in human history has the CO2 levels been this high and they continue to rise at an alarming rate.

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

24_co2-graph-021116-768px.jpg


I implore everyone to watch the Cosmos series (can be found on Netflix) or at least this episode.

 
Think of the approaches to dealing with the problem: direct regulations, changing incentives (through carbon taxes or something similar) for emissions, and/or subsidizing/incentivizing cleaner technology. The GOP has an inflexible opposition to all but that last of those, and they've already politicized that, as any program of subsidies--even a very successful one--will have some losers (like Solyndra). Of course, it's possible for a smart *conservative* to find acceptable solutions; but it doesn't appear possible for a Republican to.

My other issue is that USA is only one factor in this, it's hard not to throw your hands in the air when China and India are going to still pollute massively, when countries in Africa will still undergo major desertification, and Brazil will absolutely destroy the rain forest.

This topic makes me sad.
 
My other issue is that USA is only one factor in this, it's hard not to throw your hands in the air when China and India are going to still pollute massively, when countries in Africa will still undergo major desertification, and Brazil will absolutely destroy the rain forest.

This topic makes me sad.

The way we deal with that is by making agreements, which we've been doing (with very good results).
 
Believe it or not, I need you to dumb it down a little more. You're agreeing that we're severely damaging the sustainability of life on Earth while needing exact math on cost benefit analysis (in terms of your own creature comforts) before making a substantial effort to reduce the inter-species effects of benefits gained?
Im not agreeing that burning carbon is severely damaging the sustainability of life in earth.

Im erring in he side of miniscule damage. (to the point where cosmic threats of a gamma ray burst might be objectively more of a threat.)

So again, we have to know the cost of not burning carbon, because its going to be a night and day difference in availability in wealth.

Imagine telling the caveman to not use a campfire but opt to sun drying his deer meat. The caveman is going to need a clear cut answer why because that campfire is obviously essential to living.
 
Nobody is denying climate change, they are arguing the cause and the solution for it
And this is the point.

The point the left will try to spin and deflect and bury or obfuscate. They will try to label it as a deflection or other and the one thing they will never do is address that question.

It is like if I have a car that is not working and I am not sure if I can fix, and it could be one factor or a multitude of factors. If I identify the tires are flat do I simply fix them without knowing if that will fix the car or make it run? No matter how many times (the left) someone points at the tires and says 'see it is part of the problem' that does not address the true question or issue. "WILL WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING ACTUALLY ADDRESS AND FIX THE PROBLEM???".

The left will not engage in that question as they have no answer. They pretend that question is not relevant when in fact it is the most relevant question in the debate.
 
The way we deal with that is by making agreements, which we've been doing (with very good results).

The deals we've made and can make do not negate the fact that India's population isn't struggling to find where to plug their Tesla in, they are trying to simply get reliable electricity and have a refrigerator.

It's not possible to retard their growth due to them acknowledging that getting the 1.2+ billion population out of the slums and into a first world society means they will effectively destroy the world.

Deals are important. Keep making them, but I fear the train has left the station.
 
The deals we've made and can make do not negate the fact that India's population isn't struggling to find where to plug their Tesla in, they are trying to simply get reliable electricity and have a refrigerator.

It's not possible to retard their growth due to them acknowledging that getting the 1.2+ billion population out of the slums and into a first world society.

Deals are important. Keep making them, but I fear the train has left the station.

To some extent, sure. Like, we've already seen a lot of warming and problems caused by it, and that will continue. But the future is looking way better than it was just a few years ago.
 
Experts have already claimed it's impossible to reverse at this point, so fuck it. Let the world burn. I'll be too dead to care when it becomes a serious threat to humanity anyways.
 
To some extent, sure. Like, we've already seen a lot of warming and problems caused by it, and that will continue. But the future is looking way better than it was just a few years ago.

Progress has been made, but I have a more pessimistic view. In the USA and other developed countries it's been progressing but in the majority of the world it's still producing a negative net gain.

I don't know what the answer is.

Maybe vote for trump, hope for a massive reduction in human population, and go from there?
 
Back
Top