New Study: Climate Change report from the White House

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Ice core samples reveal what, exactly? We don't know but we rely on explanations by those scientists whose funding i.e. living depends on there being a Global Warming crisis.

 

One minute spent on 'The Google' provides enough data on both sides for one to speculate that the science is interpretive. We don't know...............

[tanatastic 2,061]

Ice core samples reveal what, exactly? We don't know but we rely on explanations by those scientists whose funding i.e. living depends on there being a Global Warming crisis.

 

One minute spent on 'The Google' provides enough data on both sides for one to speculate that the science is interpretive. We don't know...............

It’s an easy google, but it’s something like air bubbles trapped in the ice tells us co2 levels and stuff etc. It just seems very ok but ehhhh to me, like it’s a massive reach. I’ve seen charts where they show exactly how hot,it was going back like a millionth bajillionty years and it just seems unlikely anything could tell us this reliably.

[Herbivore 904]

Ice core samples reveal what, exactly? We don't know but we rely on explanations by those scientists whose funding i.e. living depends on there being a Global Warming crisis.

 

One minute spent on 'The Google' provides enough data on both sides for one to speculate that the science is interpretive. We don't know...............

 

what do scientists know? sounds like you have it all covered.

[the s is ilent 69]

Designed to keep the SJWs engaged.

[tanatastic 2,061]

what do scientists know? sounds like you have it all covered.

Which of these options seem more logical...Being able to tell how hot it was 60 million years ago by testing a block of ice from today...Or not?

[Baker Boy 1,475]

Science doesn’t have the answers. It guesses, tests, and guesses again.

[MDC 5,875]

The climate change debate is not something I'm well versed in, but I do have a rather simple question: if the climate change advocates are wrong, what are the ramifications, and inversely, if the climate change skeptics are wrong, what are the ramifications for that?

[posty 2,295]

The climate change debate is not something I'm well versed in, but I do have a rather simple question: if the climate change advocates are wrong, what are the ramifications, and inversely, if the climate change skeptics are wrong, what are the ramifications for that?

The main problem that I have is the fear-mongering... Al Gore mentioned in the mid-2000s that there would be a catastrophic situation in ten years... That passed...

 

There are other times in the late 1970s-2000 time frame where doom-and-gloom was thrown out there if we didn't change... The Earth is still here...

 

They keep moving the goal posts when every "bad" thing that is supposed to happen doesn't...

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,564]

 

I have read that plant life has increased by something along the line of 33% in response to increases in Co2

 

some of you guys know what I do for a living, and for what its worth, optimal fruit and flower levels are between 1100 and 1200 ppm, depending on altitude

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,564]

The climate change debate is not something I'm well versed in, but I do have a rather simple question: if the climate change advocates are wrong, what are the ramifications, and inversely, if the climate change skeptics are wrong, what are the ramifications for that?

 

here is another thing they use to scare us into climate change

 

this hurricane has done x millions more damage than any previous hurricane

 

what they don't say is, thats because there is x more buildings, houses, stores since the last time

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,564]

Why do you care so much? From what I know, the ways being presented to combat global warming are less pollution and alternative energy sources. Are you against them?

 

if people were really for alternative energy then they should do the most efficient energy in existance, the cleanest, the cheapest, and the best

 

Nuclear

 

imagine if in 1970 rather than shutting down the progress of nuclear experimentation, we allowed it to develop for the next 50 years, we could quite possibly have been at the point now that we had a generator on the side of our house that is splitting atoms

[penultimatestraw 473]

Its different. The science behind it is murky imo. Its guesstimation and thats a wild stretch of the word. Just think about it. A chunk of ice telling you the weather millions of years ago? Use your head, be rational. Does that sound like a thing thats real or accurate if it is real?

Lets say I had never seen a plane and though they were impossible. You could show me the parts and show me how it works and how it flys and then I could say ok now I get it. Its in the here and now, I can touch it. Tell me about ice samples showing me the temperature mil of years ago is silly.

Same as those stories of oh theres a sun 50 galaxies away thats exactlly this big and this hot etc. Oh what camera are we using to see this sun so far away when we can barely scrape our own galaxy thats like a grain of sand on a beach?

Whats hard to understand? Heres a quick step by step guide to get you up to speed:

 

1. In perenially cold regions, ice melts very little, if at all.

2. As a result it accumulates, sometimes in sheets miles thick.

3. When the ice sheets are formed, debris and bubbles of air are trapped.

4. The debris and air pockets are reflective of local geologic and atmospheric conditions when the ice was formed.

5. If the core sample from theses sheets is deep enough, you can effectively estimate conditions from thousands of years ago, when the bottom layers were formed.

6. Plotting things like CO2 content in the trapped bubbles vs. depth (time) leads to predictive models which can extrapolate even more ancient levels of greenhouse gasses.

 

Its kind of like the rings of a tree indicate age and conditions while it was growing, except the deepest ice cores can provide data from ~ 800,000 years ago.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

The climate change debate is not something I'm well versed in, but I do have a rather simple question: if the climate change advocates are wrong, what are the ramifications, and inversely, if the climate change skeptics are wrong, what are the ramifications for that?

 

If America listens and abides by the recommendation of climate change advocates who turn out to be wrong:

 

A. then we Americans are out trillions of dollars and businesses suffer.

 

B. If they are right: then we Americans are out trillions, businesses suffer and we might lower the Earth's temperature .25 degrees in the next ten years.

 

If America doesn't listen nor abide by the recommendation of climate change advocates:

 

A. that the advocates turn out to be wrong, then we Americans are not out trillions of dollars and our businesses don't suffer.

 

B. If they are right then we Americans are not out trillions of dollars and our businesses don't suffer and we forfeit the chance of lowering the Earth's temperature by .25 degrees in the next ten years.

 

 

Basically it boils down to the .25 degrees. Is that worth trillions of American taxpayer dollars and bankrupting businesses?

[drobeski 3,061]

Is bigger government the solution?

[drobeski 3,061]

Whats hard to understand? Heres a quick step by step guide to get you up to speed:

 

1. In perenially cold regions, ice melts very little, if at all.

2. As a result it accumulates, sometimes in sheets miles thick.

3. When the ice sheets are formed, debris and bubbles of air are trapped.

4. The debris and air pockets are reflective of local geologic and atmospheric conditions when the ice was formed.

5. If the core sample from theses sheets is deep enough, you can effectively extrapolate conditions from thousands of years ago, when the bottom layers were formed.

6. Plotting things like CO2 content in the trapped bubbles vs. depth (time) leads to predictive models which can extrapolate even more ancient levels of greenhouse gasses.

 

Its kind of like the rings of a tree indicate age and conditions while it was growing, except the deepest ice cores can provide data from ~ 800,000 years ago.

then why do they ALWAYS manipulate the data ?

[sderk 1,040]

then why do they ALWAYS manipulate the data ?

That's what people do when they want to push an agenda. Truth doesn't matter.

[penultimatestraw 473]

then why do they ALWAYS manipulate the data ?

They don’t.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

They don’t.

 

Basically it boils down to the .25 degrees. Is that worth trillions of American taxpayer dollars and bankrupting businesses?

[kutulu 1,541]

Winter Is Coming

[NorthernVike 2,079]

Winter Is Coming

It already came.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,564]

you are a climate denier if you do any of the following

 

1) disagree that climate change is man made

2) believe that it is man made, but don't believe its catastrophic end of the world

3) believe that man has a minor influence, but don't think throwing trillions of dollars at a problem that might reduce the temperature by .5 degrees in the next 100 years, while China, India and other developing nations do nothing

[RLLD 3,455]

Whether man-made or not it is coming, I doubt that we can change how we pollute without creating more problems, its a real big problem. I think our best bet is to keep trying to find ways to lessen our contributions to pollution in a balanced way, a way that avoids hurting people where possible, but more importantly we need to accept the looming reality and start reacting to it now. Our insistence in living nearing the ocean, or areas prone to flooding needs to be thought out more thoroughly.

[lickin_starfish 1,477]

I saw an article recently that the sun was going through a low solar flare cycle, and that it is supposed to usher in a mini-ice age on Earth.

 

Should we fire up our Global Warming machines to counteract the solar inactivity?

[RLLD 3,455]

I saw an article recently that the sun was going through a low solar flare cycle, and that it is supposed to usher in a mini-ice age on Earth.

 

Should we fire up our Global Warming machines to counteract the solar inactivity?

 

That's interesting, I read something that might contradict that....i will have to go read more.

 

I think that concern should be low, we might want to consider what happens with the diminishing magnetic field, and what happens if it switches.

[Mike Honcho 3,998]

A new ice age and worldwide starvation: In the 1960s and 70s, top mainstream media outlets, such as Newsweek above, hyped the imminent global-cooling apocalypse. Even as late as the early 1980s, prominent voices still warned of potential doomsday scenarios owing to man-made cooling, ranging from mass starvation caused by cooling-induced crop failures to another Ice Age that would kill most of mankind.

 

Among the top global-cooling theorists were Obamas current science czar John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich,

 

the author of Population Bomb, which predicted mass starvation worldwide. In the 1971 textbook Global Ecology, the duo warned that overpopulation and pollution would produce a new ice age, claiming that human activities are said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend. The pair fingered jet exhausts and man-made changes in the reflectivity of the earths surface through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts as potential triggers for his new ice age. They worried that the man-made cooling might produce an outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap and generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.

 

Holdren predicted that a billion people would die in carbon-dioxide induced famines as part of a new Ice Age by the year 2020.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22289-climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything

 

 

then why do they ALWAYS manipulate the data ?

 

These two topics have been debunked multiple times here and world wide. That the two of you keep repeating them says more about your need to never admit being wrong and trying to side track the debate than real legitimate concerns about global warming.

You two are part of the problem.

[posty 2,295]

These two topics have been debunked multiple times

Link?

[lickin_starfish 1,477]

The problem is that there is no problem, and people like you are trying to create one.

[RLLD 3,455]

The problem is that there is no problem, and people like you are trying to create one.

 

This might be true, and its not like this hasnt been done before as with BLM and others....leftists love to create problems to complain about, i must admit that....and when you call them out on it, they point the finger back at you and claim that YOU are the one complaining.....crassic....

[TimmySmith 2,782]

You would have been the guy at Kitty Hawk telling everyone, it's common sense man, they'll never get off the ground.

And you would have been the guy saying, "well that's it, we'll never improve upon that". The science of every generation is truth, until the next one inevitably builds upon it. Climate change predictions from Al Gore's film 20 years ago have already proven to be nonsense. I am not saying it isn't happening, but chicken little predictions need to be tempered.

[Cdub100 3,366]

I'm supposed to believe a half degree increase in the temperature has completely devastated the ice sheets in the north pole?

[RLLD 3,455]

I'm supposed to believe a half degree increase in the temperature has completely devastated the ice sheets in the north pole?

 

Yes, its not that outrageous.

[drobeski 3,061]

Sometimes warm can come from below ?

 

I know I boil my water on top of the hot plate, not below it.

 

But what do I know...I'm just a plumma

[lickin_starfish 1,477]

Give a hoot, don't pollute.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

 

 

These two topics have been debunked multiple times here and world wide. That the two of you keep repeating them says more about your need to never admit being wrong and trying to side track the debate than real legitimate concerns about global warming.

You two are part of the problem.

 

Basically it boils down to the .25 degrees. Is that worth trillions of American taxpayer dollars and bankrupting businesses?

 

 

None of you left leaners seem to have an answer for that question.

[RLLD 3,455]

 

Basically it boils down to the .25 degrees. Is that worth trillions of American taxpayer dollars and bankrupting businesses?

 

 

None of you left leaners seem to have an answer for that question.

 

More pointedly, who is more harmed by the acts put in place to address the issue.....it seems to be the poorest people who likely suffer.

[Mike Honcho 3,998]

 

Basically it boils down to the .25 degrees. Is that worth trillions of American taxpayer dollars and bankrupting businesses?

 

 

None of you left leaners seem to have an answer for that question.

 

 

 

 

More pointedly, who is more harmed by the acts put in place to address the issue.....it seems to be the poorest people who likely suffer.

 

Maybe you two should read the report, because the harms to the poorest people are quite a bit greater if global warming continues, and one of the biggest conclusions of the report is the trillions that will be lost because of warming.

[RLLD 3,455]

 

 

 

 

Maybe you two should read the report, because the harms to the poorest people are quite a bit greater if global warming continues, and one of the biggest conclusions of the report is the trillions that will be lost because of warming.

 

This is actually true, if you read many of the scientific studies efforts to fix the issue as well as the negative outcomes both hurt the poor disproportionately.

 

Open question to the forum: which one is more harmful and to whom and for how long?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Maybe you two should read the report, because the harms to the poorest people are quite a bit greater if global warming continues, and one of the biggest conclusions of the report is the trillions that will be lost because of warming.

 

So no answer then?

 

Assume Gloabal warming is real; wouldn't we be better served spending even half that money on rebuilding the infrastructure of this country both in the cities and on the coastlines? Or do you think we should give the 12 trillion dollars to the world and let the U.N. decide how that gets spent?

[KSB2424 3,082]

I'm not a scientist but I do possess common sense.

 

I'm going to assume man is "creating" by way of living here on earth a negative impact on the environment. Seems to pass the logical smell test. With that said, we really don't know how much exactly, and I sure as hell am not for disrupting our (USA) economy when places like India and China are the main pollutants of the Earth.

 

[Mike Honcho 3,998]

 

So no answer then?

 

Assume Gloabal warming is real; wouldn't we be better served spending even half that money on rebuilding the infrastructure of this country both in the cities and on the coastlines? Or do you think we should give the 12 trillion dollars to the world and let the U.N. decide how that gets spent?

 

I told you where to find your answer...I linked it in the first post. So I guess we are stuck at an impasse, you are too lazy to look it up and I'm too lazy to summarize it for you.