Social The hypocrisy of climate change activists.

How about we talk solutions? I’m sure you were one of those people back in the 50s who threw a hissy fit over the seat belt law.

When you learn how to talk like an adult without the dishonesty, strawmen and hyperbole, we can talk. I've read enough of your posts in this thread to recognize that you are too childish to have a serious conversation with.
 
I agree that we do but not at the expense of American citizens and at the benefit of whoever is stuffing the politician's pockets.
Well, the point is that climate change hurts the standard of living of people, and preventing it is better. Obviously people aren't going to support tradeoffs they think come out negative.
 
Solutions I've seen this far floated mostly just allow the rich to do whatever they want and the poor to take the hit.
The poor take a bigger hit from climate change. Rich people are pretty free from the consequences.
 
Why do you think that no one has disputed his findings? I'll discuss any of his points with you if you like.

The three that stick out are:

(1) When temperature readings from the urban areas are pulled and only the rural readings are used there is no "Global Warming".
(2) The pull from other celestial bodies on Earth is what creates the variance as the impact on Earth from it's position with the son is slightly altered each orbit.
(3) Fossil Fuels in space.

I don't know much about these items, but I find them interesting points of discussion.
 
How about we talk solutions? I’m sure you were one of those people back in the 50s who threw a hissy fit over the seat belt law.
you deal with whatever fantasy solutions you have, dont make me pay for it.

it's your religion, not mine.

and before you respond, I have an electric car, I use solar, and I have a powerwall, so I am virtuous <GrassoBless>.

here's one for ya

"A recent study in Adelaide, Australia, found that tree canopy cover and, to a lesser extent, grass cover decreased local daytime surface temperatures by up to 6 C during extreme summer heat conditions."

for your inner karen, plant your ass some trees in your neighborhood.
 
The fact that some celebrities are hypocrites has nothing to do with if climate change is a problem.

It is absolutely real and not a matter of opinion.

We should go nuclear IMO.

On an individual level, we can do little things - be less wasteful, use less water, use less electricity, recycle - not just for climate change but a lot of other conservation problems like cutting down trees, using less resources, etc.


I lived in a forest for four decades. Trees are a renewable resource. LMAO.

They NEED to be cut down and managed properly.
 
The three that stick out are:

(1) When temperature readings from the urban areas are pulled and only the rural readings are used there is no "Global Warming".
(2) The pull from other celestial bodies on Earth is what creates the variance as the impact on Earth from it's position with the son is slightly altered each orbit.
(3) Fossil Fuels in space.

I don't know much about these items, but I find them interesting points of discussion.

Let's start with the first one.

Outside of surface temp data, we also have other forms of corroborating information.

Ocean heat content has been rising

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

ClimateDashboard-ocean-heat-content-graph-20230614-1400px.png


Glacial retreat:

https://nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryos...results from multiple,in balance or even grow.

Arctic sea ice decline

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Permafrost thaw

https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/...institute-permafrost-series-fall-winter-2020/

There are others I can list here as well. You can see that we have multiple lines of converging data/evidence that the world is warming. If you're fine with this then we can move on to the next point.
 
Let's start with the first one.

Outside of surface temp data, we also have other forms of corroborating information.

Ocean heat content has been rising

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

ClimateDashboard-ocean-heat-content-graph-20230614-1400px.png


Glacial retreat:

https://nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryosphere/glaciers/science-glaciers#:~:text=Glacier retreat results from multiple,in balance or even grow.

Arctic sea ice decline

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Permafrost thaw

https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/...institute-permafrost-series-fall-winter-2020/

There are others I can list here as well. You can see that we have multiple lines of converging data/evidence that the world is warming. If you're fine with this then we can move on to the next point.

Nice.... and thanks for the effort. What do you think about ocean temps correlating with this?

historical_activity_600years.jpg


I believe it is well know that the oceanic volcanic activity has picked up.
 
Nice.... and thanks for the effort. What do you think about ocean temps correlating with this?

historical_activity_600years.jpg


I believe it is well know that the oceanic volcanic activity has picked up.

I can't imagine this would have much affect, there are not many volcano's that are really "active". For example, the volcano I live on is considered active but it has not had an eruption in close to 200 years.

I would be surprised if there was enough hot lava and such to move the overall water temps.
 
Nice.... and thanks for the effort. What do you think about ocean temps correlating with this?

historical_activity_600years.jpg


I believe it is well know that the oceanic volcanic activity has picked up.

I found the source of that graph:

https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=historicalactivity

Figure 2. Graph showing *known* historically active volcanoes, number of volcanoes *reported to be* active each year, and population

"A dramatic increase in both the number of historically active volcanoes and recorded eruptions took place about 1500 CE. These resulted in part from the great Spanish/Portuguese marine explorations – the Age of Discovery – around the end of the 15th century, when explorers opened Latin America and much of the western Pacific to European record-keeping. Perhaps equally important was the development and widespread distribution of the printing press in the late 15th century, markedly increasing the likelihood that new volcanological records would survive"

So the context of that graph is really more about the growing and expanding population and their ability to report volcanic activity.

The first paragraph of the site actually says:

"The Global Volcanism Program does not see any evidence that volcanic activity is actually increasing. Data about eruptions has been compiled by the Smithsonian since 1968 in order to provide context for global volcanism. The following figures and discussion are modified from an introductory section in Siebert et al. (2010); data is through 2009, but more recent data is available. Please do not reproduce the figures below without all of the accompanying analysis and proper citation (links are preferred). There is great value in knowing the recent volcanological record, but its limitations are not always apparent. Readers are strongly cautioned against mistaking the record for the reality."
 
I can't imagine this would have much affect, there are not many volcano's that are really "active". For example, the volcano I live on is considered active but it has not had an eruption in close to 200 years.

I would be surprised if there was enough hot lava and such to move the overall water temps.

But it does have a lot of affect. The heating element of the oceans is turned up right now.
 
Rightists: “Taylor swift rides around in a jet therefore climate change isn’t real”

Rightist: it was cold today, the scientists said it’s warming so they are full of shit

The left still can't meme, I see. I actually feel sorry for you.
 
Why do you believe this, because of the graph you cited? Did you look at the actual source that it's from?

Because there seems to be a debate among scientists on the matter.


It's a good write up and it's difficult to believe that an increase in volcanic activity wouldn't have an impact.
 
Because there seems to be a debate among scientists on the matter.


It's a good write up and it's difficult to believe that an increase in volcanic activity wouldn't have an impact.


The debate has been settled amoung 99% of the scientists. There’s the 1%. Show me peer reviewed papers
 
Dude, the science is settled! Don’t you trust the science?!

lol... I work with some Scientists from our national labs off an on. You'd be surprised that some of them have actually said this out loud only to have their peers do a full Linda Blair head spin when the words come out of their mouths. I was at lunch in Idaho last year with some when they started debating. It was funny to witness uber geeks go at it... in the nicest of ways. The best was two of them both on the Global Warming side of it arguing because one said it was settled, even though they agree on the big picture.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,108
Messages
55,467,898
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby
Back
Top