Do not believe in climate change caused by mankind?

[coffee]

Hitler, Stalin, Mau, FEMA.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/23/fema-targets-climate-change-denier-governors-could/

Join or die

 

['putertutor]

Wow, coffee! Hyperbolic much?

Quote:
The policy, which goes into effect in March 2016, doesn’t affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood, or other natural disaster. But states seeking disaster preparedness money from Washington will be required to assess how climate change threatens their communities, a requirement that wasn’t included in FEMA’s 2008 guidelines.
/Quote

Asking for an assessment of how climate change is affecting their communities is not akin to Hitler, Stalin, Mau, etc. It's simply another tool by which FEMA can assess the urgency and necessity of allocating preparedness funds. It's literally just another data point for them to put into the equation. How is more information bad?

Now, if you are a denier, well I can't help you there. When 98-99% of all scientists agree that climate change is here and is man made, ignore them at everyone's peril, I suppose. Personally, if I go to the doctor, get a diagnosis of a deadly but curable disease, and then get 99 more opinions, and all but 3 agree with the diagnosis, I can tell you I would go forward with the treatment. Especially if that treatment had near zero side effects and lots of benefits (even if the 3 other doctors are right). To not do anything seems to be a decision based on the height of arrogance and ignorance.

Listen to your pizza-climatologists if you like, I'll take the advice of a professional every time.

 

[Galdorf]

Climate change has been going on for millions of years , it is still going on and will always continue on.
There has been numerous mini ice ages in past fact planet has been going through warming and cooing phases for millions of years.
Fact north and south poles were tropical millions of years ago, Niagara 450 million years ago was the bed of a tropical sea.
During the Mesozoic (“middle life”) Era, from 225 to 70 million years ago, Alberta alternatively emerged from the ocean depths, and was submerged again.
Climate change is not man made it has always been here as core samples taken around the world prove climate is ever changing since beginning of the earth.
They need to worry more about pollution than anything else as you can see in China with cities cloaked in fog.

 

[citizensmith]

@coffee - Is that guy with the 'tache looking for his really tall friend Kyle?

 

['putertutor]

@Galdorf
All that is true. How er the type of change we are seeing today is very different than what you are talking about and is man made (the debate on that is truly over now).

And, yes, pollution does need to be addressed, especially as the cause of one is a contributor to the other.

 

[citizensmith]

Easy way to settle this is to kill everyone and then remoteley monitor what happens to the temp. Give the Mars Colony team something to do





in this case I agree with galdorf - GW = no such ting IMHO

 

['putertutor]

Easy way to settle this is to kill everyone and then remoteley monitor what happens to the temp. Give the Mars Colony team something to do

Well, I can't fault your logic here. I like it, let's do it!

 

[alluseridsrejected]

if I go to the doctor

Doctors reach their diagnosis concerning deadly but curable diseases by studying thousands or millions of people that died from that condition. With climate change the Earth is the patient. Claiming BS like the debate is over and the science is settled and spouting bogus consensus numbers when the climate scientist quacks are looking at the first breath of their first patient and maybe a stool sample over there on the floor is worse than a medieval doctor saying quick, attach these leeches so we can suck the bad blood out.

Your comparison to medical science is very poor. Mine still gives too much credit.

 

['putertutor]

No metaphor is perfect. My point was that when you have the type of consensus that we are seeing today (which is not bogus at all), and you choose to ignore such overwhelming evidence, or create wild conspiracy theories (you haven't done so in this thread, but there is a large number people out there in the conspiracy camp), you fly in the face of science. We aren't looking at a first breath. We have historical evidence going back thousands and millions of years - your buddy Galdorf at least acknowledges that we have such knowledge.

You and I will most likely never agree on this point. And that's ok. I know that no matter the pile of evidence I present to you, you will likely not budge (because if you haven't yet, I don't think another 3% will do it for you), and I know that I won't budge outside of a substantial amount of credible evidence in your favor (but again, given where things stand now, that's not likely).

But just answer one question for me. Just for a moment, let's just say that you are correct, that GW is false. What is the problem with taking steps to reduce greenhouse gasses which generally come with numerous pollutants; reduce oil consumption, which is a finite resource; and create new economies by investing in renewable energy sources? Why shouldn't we be taking the sort of actions the "climate scientist quacks" are espousing? Regardless of the reason, shouldn't we be taking active measures to simply reduce pollution and more carefully use limited resources? (And let's not go taking the wording of this hypothetical question as some admission on my part that scientists are fabricating evidence as some sort of conspiracy.)

I'll hang up and listen to your answer on air... (means I'm not adding any more to this thread as I hate the way they generally degrade into babble. In fact, I hate myself for just contributing as much as I have).

 

[phaZed]

Hitler, Stalin, Mau, FEMA.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/23/fema-targets-climate-change-denier-governors-could/

Still posting tid-bits to keep the lie alive and convince your own self, once again, I see.
ROFL, LOL.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

No metaphor is perfect.

Your right, but mine is more accurate than yours.

We aren't looking at a first breath. We have historical evidence going back thousands and millions of years

That would be the stool sample I referred to already.

But just answer one question for me.

I see more than one question.

Just for a moment, let's just say that you are correct, that GW is false. What is the problem with taking steps to reduce greenhouse gasses which generally come with numerous pollutants; reduce oil consumption, which is a finite resource; and create new economies by investing in renewable energy sources?

More expensive energy will not create new economies. New solutions are fine as long as they are workable. Solar snow collectors and wind powered bird choppers will not cut our CO2 emissions. There is no such thing as renewable energy. If you are not pushing for safe nuclear then you are advocating for policies destined to fail.

Regardless of the reason, shouldn't we be taking active measures to simply reduce pollution and more carefully use limited resources?

What measures? and don't say solar, wind or taxes? Those things will not do away with fossil fuels. Life for multiple billions living on this planet was only made possible by fossil fuel.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qop9b0b63vveoh7/Coming Clean - Nature Climate Change.pdf?dl=0

 

[JustInspired]

Can Bryce start a new forum called Climatenibble please.

 

[oldtech]

We had a perfect example of climate change here the other day...Wednesday was 70 deg. and by the following Monday it was snowing. OMFG the sky is falling!. My personal opinion of the fairy tale that mankind is affecting climate change is that it is a bunch of horseshite being foisted upon a bunch of saps. The amount of co2 in the atmosphere has fluctuated wildly throughout history - we know that much from ice core samples. Global warming hysteria is the ultimate manifestation of a generation or two of self important twits believing whatever they are told.

I was personally raised with this credo right or wrong.

believe almost nothing of what you read
half of what you hear
and most of what you see for yourself.

 

[phaZed]

We had a perfect example of climate change here the other day...Wednesday was 70 deg. and by the following Monday it was snowing. OMFG the sky is falling!

The ability of you guys to conflate Weather with Climate and the unwillingness to understand that they are not the same nor hardly related in this context is utterly.. sad... and astounding.

Global warming hysteria is the ultimate manifestation of a generation or two of self important twits believing whatever they are told.

Yet, it couldn't be the other way around. The entire world is in massive agreement, yet, you know all about the big secret! Your CO2 ideas have already been dispelled by science. I see you have no interest in self education - or perhaps even, formal education on the subject.

believe almost nothing of what you read
half of what you hear
and most of what you see for yourself.

This thread started out with Nazism, yet, your core credo would fit perfect with the Nazi's. How bout you burn every book you see because it is "untruth", then you can rely on listening to passed down tales (Which are almost always wrong; telephone game) and your sight which is one of the least reliable senses. See you at the magic show!

 

[Moltuae]

Can Bryce start a new forum called Climatenibble please.

Don't forget ReligiNibble and PolitiNibble

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Global changes in climate have happened for the entire history of our planet. Ice ages, global warmings, more ice ages, more global warmings. The global climate has waxed and waned for billions of years on its own.

HOWEVER...I do truly believe that humans have accelerated this, and made things worse....in just a hundred years...since the industrial revolution.

And I'm not some hippie tree hugger....but I respect the earth, and here are a couple of main beliefs I have.

It's a fact that we destroyed much of the ozone..there is no mystery in that, and there's no question that it is a big factor for us and our planet.
Yes we've become more aware of trying to protect it with products that pollute less...but much of the damage was done several decades ago, we're only slowing down the damage now.

The ocean plays a HUGE part in our climate conditions. Massive over fishing, and pollution, have changed much of it. Our friends "down under" have a natural wonder of the world that impacts the ocean, currents, and global climate believe it or not. It's called the Great Barrier Reef. That reef is dying....massively dying. Pollution in the ocean and rapidly rising ocean temps have done much of that.

Deforestation has also played a huge part in the current global change.

So while global climate changes have always occurred in the history of our planet, they've been much slower in the past. The global changes that are happening now are unprecedented in speed...happening in a matter of decades, not over thousands of years like in the past.

 

[gunslinger]

We had a perfect example of climate change here the other day...Wednesday was 70 deg. and by the following Monday it was snowing. OMFG the sky is falling!. My personal opinion of the fairy tale that mankind is affecting climate change is that it is a bunch of horseshite being foisted upon a bunch of saps. The amount of co2 in the atmosphere has fluctuated wildly throughout history - we know that much from ice core samples. Global warming hysteria is the ultimate manifestation of a generation or two of self important twits believing whatever they are told.

I was personally raised with this credo right or wrong.

believe almost nothing of what you read
half of what you hear
and most of what you see for yourself.

This^^^^^^^


Actually I think liberalism is the ultimate manifestation of it but yeah, pretty much one in the same.

 

[SilverLeaf]

This^^^^^^^


Actually I think liberalism is the ultimate manifestation of it but yeah, pretty much one in the same.

...and there goes any credibility you had to participate in an unbiased and rational discussion of the topic at hand. This should not be a political or ideological debate. Invariably, the facts get buried when this happens.

 

[gunslinger]

...and there goes any credibility you had to participate in an unbiased and rational discussion of the topic at hand. This should not be a political or ideological debate. Invariably, the facts get buried when this happens.

Oh I agree I have nothing useful to contribute to this so called "debate"....lol I was just agreeing with the common sense guy oldtech. Carry on, carry on.

 

[oldtech]

Phazed Lighten up. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. Your Nazi reference is offensive to me in the extreme. Only a Nazi would try to stifle or brow beat another's opinion, while if you reread my post I was simply offering mine. Just because we disagree doesn't have to result in personal attacks regardless of how far toward the opposite pole one stands. I assure you long after we are gone someone will still be having this discussion. Oh and for your edification ...

[ ˈweT͟Hər ]
NOUN
the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.:
"if the weather's good, we can go for a walk"
synonyms: forecast · outlook · meteorological conditions · climate ·

It appears climate and weather are one in the same after all, or at least synonymous, with the only "context" being the duration of the event you are describing...