Climate chage report

[GTWT]

8 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Don't believe that (evolution)  is settled.

How do you feel about a flat earth?

[UNTLifer]

4 hours ago, GTWT said:

How do you feel about a flat earth?

That is settled.  Evolution, meaning humans evolved from some creature that crawled out of the ocean not even close.  Look, I get it, you don't believe in creationism, etc... but don't lump evolution in with flat earth, etc...

[LongJim]

CO2 emissions from the US power sector have declined almost 30% since 2005.  The US is doing it's part.

And again, there is an entire worldwide industry being built on "climate change".  Much of it driven by policy legislation.  Much of the growth due to the need for "consultants".  Imagine that.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm
 

Edited November 27, 2018 by LongJim

[UNTLifer]

I would guess Al Gore is still cashing in.

[Censored by Laurie]

1 hour ago, LongJim said:

CO2 emissions from the US power sector have declined almost 30% since 2005.  The US is doing it's part.

And again, there is an entire worldwide industry being built on "climate change".  Much of it driven by policy legislation.  Much of the growth due to the need for "consultants".  Imagine that.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm
 

 

21 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

I would guess Al Gore is still cashing in.

wait...so we're now both surprised and demonizing of the fact that new industries cropped up around scientific developments and the technological resources needed to implement them?

and we're indignant about it...WHILE ON THE INTERNET...without even the slightest hint of ironic appreciation?

[LongJim]

5 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

 

...we're now both surprised and demonizing of the fact that new industries cropped up around scientific developments and the technological resources needed to implement them?

...without even the slightest hint of ironic appreciation?

Well I suppose if you straight believe that this whole group-think money grab is on the up-and-up, then yeah, I guess it's ironic.  I personally don't believe it is, so no--I don't find any irony in the situation at all.

[GTWT]

8 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

That is settled.  Evolution, meaning humans evolved from some creature that crawled out of the ocean not even close.  Look, I get it, you don't believe in creationism, etc... but don't lump evolution in with flat earth, etc...

Creationism, flat earthers, climate change denial.  All forms of science denial.  All equally irrational.

 

[Censored by Laurie]

19 minutes ago, LongJim said:

Well I suppose if you straight believe that this whole group-think money grab is on the up-and-up, then yeah, I guess it's ironic.  I personally don't believe it is, so no--I don't find any irony in the situation at all.

 - paid for by the Council for Telegraphs and The International Organization of Carrier Pigeons - 

[LongJim]

6 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

 - paid for by the Council for Telegraphs and The International Organization of Carrier Pigeons - 

I laughed. 😎

[LongJim]

16 minutes ago, GTWT said:

Creationism, flat earthers, climate change denial.  All forms of science denial.  All equally irrational.

 

Man has influenced climate since man appeared on earth.  The amount of effect he has on that climate is up for debate, and debate is not denial.  Nor is it irrational.  

 

[GTWT]

19 minutes ago, LongJim said:

Man has influenced climate since man appeared on earth.  The amount of effect he has on that climate is up for debate, and debate is not denial.  Nor is it irrational.  

 

Yes, man has influenced climate significantly since the agricultural revolution ~12,000 years ago.  He continues his influence through the massive release of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution   The effects on the climate are correspondingly greater.

[Censored by Laurie]

2 hours ago, LongJim said:

Man has influenced climate since man appeared on earth.  The amount of effect he has on that climate is up for debate, and debate is not denial.  Nor is it irrational.  

 

so then you think the increase in both influence and population is just coincidence and not correlation to causation? 

[meangreenlax]

Source: NOAA

[meangreenlax]

On 11/26/2018 at 7:52 AM, KRAM1 said:

Sooooooo...what will be done about China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Russia and on and on? U.S. cannot solve this issue alone no matter what we do. How does one get these folks on board if, in fact, humans are the cause. Saw a report recently that the ozone layer was “healing”. That’s good, right? But, seems to me that this is a global issue and “global” doesn’t seem to be playing ball even after signing some “agreements on climate change” that like most U.N.-esque agreements place the majority of blame and burden on the U.S. 

Big issue. Going to take some smart folks to solve. And world governments that do more than sign worthless agreements that are not followed, but whose signers can claim how righteous they are all the while billowing tons and tons of co2 and other garbage. How we gonna fix that? Huh? 🤷‍♂️

The US is the leader in per capita emissions, and has been for quite some time. In 2016, the US had a CO2 rate of 16.4 tonnes per capita, versus China at 7.36 tonnes.

Looking at the absolute numbers, China is the big elephant in the room, however, to suggest that the US shouldn't act because we're only the second worst, is childish. Source

 

[LongJim]

9 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

so then you think the increase in both influence and population is just coincidence and not correlation to causation? 

To an increase in CO2?  Sure.  I think it's a good idea to try to minimize man-caused CO2 emissions as much as we can.  Having said that, I think it's likely that any "climate change" is primarily due to normal fluctuations in climate caused by solar effects on our oceans and atmosphere.  That doesn't mean that man doesn't have some culpability, or that good stewardship of the earth and its resources are not good or desirable things.  There are just many more factors involved in any changes to our climate than proponents of AGW would have us believe, and I think most of those changes are naturally-occurring.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

On 11/26/2018 at 9:54 PM, UNTLifer said:

Seriously?  The United States is one of these nations polluting the earth the least.  Look to China and countries of their ilk that don't care about the consequences of their actions.

They didn't but they are now catching on..... My sons (engineers) has been there (China and Asia) and the pollution is awful... The air some places is terrible and now they have began  to figure it out .... Can't correct the problem over night. Corporations don't want to cut it back lots of time because it can be expensive and their competition isn't so they continue to stay competitive. .  It can only be stopped by government regulations ... pick any country . Third world countries ... they use a lot a lot of polluting materials due to poverty including coal to stay warm or cook. Got an answer for that  one ?? .. I don't. . . 

.Likely some of the change is just natural but a lot is due to man's activities. Those who deny it should notice ice at the poles is less and smaller, Glacier Nat. Park almost has none now,  and many high elevation places (mountain tops)  that were once covered by ice/snow year around aren't now. 

.One problem is so much increased population.... This Earth can only support some finite number... Some countries and areas that once had trees don't now .... they were burned to cook and stay warm... It will all  "hit the fan" someday.

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[GTWT]

5 hours ago, LongJim said:

... and I think most of those changes are naturally-occurring.

97+ % of scientists actually educated in climate science & related disciplines disagree with you. 

[KRAM1]

14 hours ago, meangreenlax said:

The US is the leader in per capita emissions, and has been for quite some time. In 2016, the US had a CO2 rate of 16.4 tonnes per capita, versus China at 7.36 tonnes.

Looking at the absolute numbers, China is the big elephant in the room, however, to suggest that the US shouldn't act because we're only the second worst, is childish. Source

 

No one suggested that the U.S. should not act...certainly not me.  And, it appears that the U.S. is doing a great deal.  My point is that the U.S. cannot and should not do it alone nor be forced through ridiculously one-sided pacts/treaties/agreements, etc. to do it alone or be held top any higher standard than any other nation. Point is...when is China going to be forced to comply? Russia? Mexico? India? Pakistan? Please, if you have it, show me how much each of those nations has lowered its CO2 emissions in the last thirteen years. CO2 from U.S. power sources down 30% since 2005.  Please show me the data that indicates these other nations have done the same or better.  You can throw in Venezuela, Iran, Iraq Japan and Korea (both North and South) if you like as well.

And, the argument that the U.S. is a bigger "polluter" then these others such as India holds no water for me.  Each of these nations pollute and each should be held accountable in lowering their emissions to at least match the U.S.  Then and only then can we all say that we, as a community of nations, are all doing our point. 

And, of course no one here has acknowledged the recent report indicating that the "hole" in the ozone layer is shrinking.  That's good news, right? So, some folks appear to be making a difference. Now, once we know exactly WHY the hole in the ozone is shrinking, then we will definitely be on to something. For the time being, the U.S. will "do its part", but hopefully will have leadership going forward that won't sign ridiculously one-sided "climate change agreements" and will attempt to hold other nations as accountable as the world seems to want the U.S. to be.

Now that this is settled, can we talk about the undue burden on the U.S. that is the United Nations?  Just kidding...we should talk about NATO or NAFTA......Ha! Just Kidding.

[GTWT]

1 minute ago, KRAM1 said:

And, of course no one here has acknowledged the recent report indicating that the "hole" in the ozone layer is shrinking.  That's good news, right? So, some folks appear to be making a difference. Now, once we know exactly WHY the hole in the ozone is shrinking, then we will definitely be on to something.

KRAM, you do know that the pollution leading to the 'hole in the ozone' layer is a entirely different matter resulting from release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons.  Restriction on release of these pollutants has resulted in reducing that hole dramatically.  Restriction in fossil CO2 release will have a similar effect on climate change.  Thanks for the example of how man can respond positively to man's pollution.

[LongJim]

18 minutes ago, GTWT said:

97+ % of scientists actually educated in climate science & related disciplines disagree with you. 

Yes, I'm quite the renegade.

[KRAM1]

17 minutes ago, GTWT said:

KRAM, you do know that the pollution leading to the 'hole in the ozone' layer is a entirely different matter resulting from release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons.  Restriction on release of these pollutants has resulted in reducing that hole dramatically.  Restriction in fossil CO2 release will have a similar effect on climate change.  Thanks for the example of how man can respond positively to man's pollution.

Yes, indeedy, Sir, I do.  Just throwing it out there as part of the whole climate change/pollution discussion.  It was also an example, of just as you point out, that "man" is doing something about it. Don't think anyone in the discussion has gone to the extreme of a "no need to even do anything" position.

[KRAM1]

28 minutes ago, GTWT said:

97+ % of scientists actually educated in climate science & related disciplines disagree with you. 

Or "indoctrinated" in climate science and related disciplines perhaps? There is a long history of scientists firmly "proving" one thing just to find out later, given more time and study and new factors, that what they "firmly believed" was in fact, not so "firm". See the simple argument on whether caffeine is good or bad for you as one small example. Or perhaps the once widely believed "fact" that the world was flat.  I am guessing that over 97% of all scientists at the time had all the facts they needed to "prover" that the earth was flat.  Yes, a long time ago, but still a case in point regarding scientific "facts".  So, we all should perhaps "excuse" those skeptics among us that are not "convinced" regarding the science of climate change as yet.  We will get there in plenty of time to "save the planet". History has shown us that if nothing else. Hey, Columbus' ships did not sail off the edge of the world...nor did Lief Erickson's either for that matter.

Anyway, I am enjoying this discussion as it seems to have not turned into a spitting match of any kind (for the most part) and I, for one, am enjoying the discussion....both sides of it as well.

[Pavlovs Eagle]

While I'm late to the debate... Call me a simpleton, but I've always found it interesting that we are so invested in maintaining the environment of the last 50-100 years into perpetuity.

If science had proved anything, it's that the global ecosystem has changed a 100-1000 times over since the earth's formation.

Discuss... and I'm not a science major, so I won't be offended when you tell me how much of a moron I am for my possibly absurd question.

[LongJim]

1 hour ago, Pavlovs Eagle said:

 I've always found it interesting that we are so invested in maintaining the environment of the last 50-100 years into perpetuity.

If science had proved anything, it's that the global ecosystem has changed a 100-1000 times over since the earth's formation.

Discuss... and I'm not a science major, so I won't be offended when you tell me how much of a moron I am for my possibly absurd question.

You're not a moron, and those are perfectly logical and reasonable observations to make.  

[GTWT]

2 hours ago, Pavlovs Eagle said:

While I'm late to the debate... Call me a simpleton, but I've always found it interesting that we are so invested in maintaining the environment of the last 50-100 years into perpetuity.

If science had proved anything, it's that the global ecosystem has changed a 100-1000 times over since the earth's formation.

Discuss... and I'm not a science major, so I won't be offended when you tell me how much of a moron I am for my possibly absurd question.

The earth has changed countless times in the past.  The difference this time is that the cause isn't vulcanism or a meteor strike.  The cause is human activity - the release of fossil CO2 by burning coal, oil, & natural gas.  We know that the effect will be rising sea-levels, changes in precipitation patterns affecting agriculture, increased disease transmission, & loss of biodiversity.  Read the recently released government report.  The world will be a harsher place for our children.  A poorer place.  The good news is that we still have time to mitigate some of the worst effects.  Unfortunately man is not known for choosing long-term good over short-term profit.  That too is our evolutionary heritage.