Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 107

Thread: Don't Forget, Climate Change is not Real

  1. #41
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4437381]You make a perfect case here for why the looney man made global warming people should be ignored. You are saying here that even just a possibility that man somehow is effecting global temperatures is a call to action.

    Then you say that the risk of ignoring the threat is greater than the risk of responding to a false panic.

    You have no clue what the risks and consequences are. Your looney environmentalist politicians would have us put heavy taxes and penalties on carbon based fuels. They would purposefully drive the prices up in order to make alternatives more viable. They are already working and succeeding at stifling the exploitation of American carbon based fuels by shutting down coal fired power plants and blocking attempts as new drilling in Anwar, offshore and Fracking locations. They would crush USofAmerica's ability to compete globally in manufacturing and other energy heavy industries. They would drive the cost of energy up for the middle class that already is burdened in this country by massive health care expenses. You would drive our economy in to the crapper based on the possibility that maybe man is contributing to a warming of the earth and the even less likely possibility that this will lead to some sort of apocalyptic scenario. Even worse is the FACT that no matter what a single country does many others won't follow suit. So all of the penalties and taxes your ilk wants to inflict on our country wont amount to a hill of beans. It wont stop whatever imaginary or not effect you are attempting to slow. It is a complete waste of time and money.

    As i said before there are plenty of unlikely but plausible scenarios that we could be preparing for. Alien invasion, an EMP that takes out our power grid, an apocalyptic meteorite strike, a reversal of the magnetic poles, a catastrophic volcano explosion, or any of the other plausible but extremely unlikely scenarios. You don't kill the economy based on unproven theories. It is absurd and self indulgent for uber libs and their kool aid drinking followers.[/QUOTE]

    First of all, we're talking about NASA's official position - not "loons".

    Secondly, because we can't predict exactly what the long term consequences of global warming would be, does not mean it's not a problem.

    But here's what NASA's website says:

    [QUOTE]

    [url]http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/[/url]

    [B]Effects[/B]

    Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

    Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occuring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.


    "Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time."
    - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

    According to the IPCC, the extent of climate change effects on individual regions will vary over time and with the ability of different societal and environmental systems to mitigate or adapt to change.

    The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase.

    "Taken as a whole," the IPCC states, "the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time." 1

    Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:

    North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.2
    Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.3
    Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.4
    Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.5
    Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions.6
    Global Climate Change: Recent Impacts7

    Phenomena Likelihood that trend occurred in late 20th century
    Cold days, cold nights and frost less frequent over land areas Very likely
    More frequent hot days and nights Very likely
    Heat waves more frequent over most land areas Likely
    Increased incidence of extreme high sea level * Likely
    Global area affected by drought has increased (since 1970s) Likely in some regions
    Increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in North Atlantic (since 1970) Likely in some regions

    * Excluding tsunamis, which are not due to climate change.

    Global Climate Change: Future Trends8

    Phenomena Likelihood of trend
    Contraction of snow cover areas, increased thaw in permafrost regions, decrease in sea ice extent Virtually certain
    Increased frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation Very likely to occur
    Increase in tropical cyclone intensity Likely to occur
    Precipitation increases in high latitudes Very likely to occur
    Precipitation decreases in subtropical land regions Very likely to occur
    Decreased water resources in many semi-arid areas, including western U.S. and Mediterranean basin High confidence

    Definitions of likelihood ranges used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%, very likely >90%, likely >66%.
    Source: Summary for Policymakers, IPCC Synthesis report, November 2007
    [url]http://www.ipcc.ch/[/url][/QUOTE]

  2. #42
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4437538]scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.
    [/QUOTE]

    Same dudes that forecasted this...

    [quote]Glacier data in the wider Himalayan region hit the headlines in 2010 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to apologize for a "poorly substantiated" study they cited which claimed all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.[/quote]

    Followed by lol...

    [quote]The Karakoram mountains in the western Himalayas as seen from a NASA satellite. New research published in the journal Nature Geoscience is showing that some of the glaciers in the region have experienced small gains in mass in the 21st century.[/quote]

  3. #43
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,787
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4437577]Same dudes that forecasted this...



    Followed by lol...[/QUOTE]

    Increased global mean temperatures does not always equate to decreased glaciation in certain regions. For example, increased global temperatures would actually result in colder temperatures in Europe.

    The earth is an enclosed environment. Altering the chemical makeup of the atmospheric gases IS going to have an effect. Will it have the effect that shrills say it will? Nope.

    There's a happy medium to be found here.

  4. #44
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4437590]Increased global mean temperatures does not always equate to decreased glaciation in certain regions. For example, increased global temperatures would actually result in colder temperatures in Europe.

    The earth is an enclosed environment. Altering the chemical makeup of the atmospheric gases IS going to have an effect. Will it have the effect that shrills say it will? Nope.

    There's a happy medium to be found here.[/QUOTE]

    I think you missed the point... These dudes, all 1,300 of them are forecasting... Guessing...

    They're fallible, as evidenced above...

  5. #45
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,787
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4437621]I think you missed the point... These dudes, all 1,300 of them are forecasting... Guessing...

    They're fallible, as evidenced above...[/QUOTE]

    A wrong weather forecaster. That's just crazy talk. ;) Scientist never claim to be infallible. There is only one person on this planet who "claims" to be infallible. Wonder who that could be. Dave Chappelle?


    Climate change deniers should hold a convention where they all hang out in a parking garage and run their cars and all get high and talk about how emissions have no effect on things. It would be a gas.

  6. #46
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4437577]Same dudes that forecasted this...



    Followed by lol...[/QUOTE]

    There is the forecasting what will happen and there is diagnosing the cause - two separate issues.

    The scientific consensus is on the diagnosis of the cause - i.e. human activity has been a major contribution.

    The forecasting of what will happen is more contested and uncertain.

    But to say the because their forecasts were wrong in what will happen, does not mean their analysis of what already has or is happening, were incorrect.

  7. #47
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,241
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4437637]A wrong weather forecaster. That's just crazy talk. ;) Scientist never claim to be infallible. There is only one person on this planet who "claims" to be infallible. Wonder who that could be. Dave Chappelle?


    Climate change deniers should hold a convention where they all hang out in a parking garage and run their cars and all get high and talk about how emissions have no effect on things. It would be a gas.[/QUOTE]

    Isn't claiming "we have consensus so the debate is over" implying infallibility?

  8. #48
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,394
    Global warming is real: there are those emails among global warming "scientists" explaining how they made it. :yes:

  9. #49
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,412
    The best part for me is how the OP references an article that points to military leaders making judgements about global warming as the lynchpin in his argument.

    I am sure the OP has a long and traceable history in trusting the military establishment!! :D

  10. #50
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4437538]First of all, we're talking about NASA's official position - not "loons".

    Secondly, because we can't predict exactly what the long term consequences of global warming would be, does not mean it's not a problem.

    But here's what NASA's website says:[/QUOTE]

    You should go back and read Jet Potato's post on this subject. The looney part is not your belief that mankind may be doing something that contributes to global temperature change. That's fine. How much man can affect things is debatable. The moonbat part is that you would have our country attempt to "do something about it". Your contention that just based on the unlikely scenario that mankind is massively affecting global temperatures, and maybe it is possible that carbon emissions is partially a factor, then you would have us take steps which have no possibility of helping the situation but will absolutely destroy our economy. For what? So you can feel good about yourself? You would punish the middle class and poor with even fewer jobs and higher energy costs. Why? Why are you so cruel? Do you hate poor people?

    I don't think you or most "environmentalist types" purposely want to hurt Americans. I choose to believe that you simply have no clue about the consequences of the policies you (environmentalist global warming types) push.

  11. #51
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4437590]Increased global mean temperatures does not always equate to decreased glaciation in certain regions. For example, increased global temperatures would actually result in colder temperatures in Europe.

    The earth is an enclosed environment. Altering the chemical makeup of the atmospheric gases IS going to have an effect. Will it have the effect that shrills say it will? Nope.

    There's a happy medium to be found here.[/QUOTE]

    We are clearly screwing the planet up. Personally I believe a free market will come up with solutions that will be far more helpful and far less dangerous than the liberal mindset of fixing it through government tyranny.

    The problem is no more on the deniers who wish to maintain the statuesque as it is with those who are cock sure of the solutions and wish to enslave the rest of us with suspect solutions.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 04-18-2012 at 12:15 PM.

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,925
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4438450]I believe a free market will come up with solutions that will be far more helpful and far less dangerous than the liberal mindset of fixing it through government tyranny.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed, but this begs the question, is the current system designed to provide the necessary environment for such action?

    The free market will not solve an issue without profit being a part of the equation. When existing infrastructure, government taxes and policies, and subsidies are taken into account, we are left with a completely uneven playing field largely advantageous to the status quo technologies and companies. In short, the newcomers have no shot economically speaking.

  13. #53
    [QUOTE=parafly;4438502]Agreed, but this begs the question, is the current system designed to provide the necessary environment for such action?

    The free market will not solve an issue without profit being a part of the equation. When existing infrastructure, government taxes and policies, and subsidies are taken into account, we are left with a completely uneven playing field largely advantageous to the status quo technologies and companies. In short, the newcomers have no shot economically speaking.[/QUOTE]

    It seems to me the politics of climate change is all about more structure to bar entry not less.

  14. #54
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4438309]You should go back and read Jet Potato's post on this subject. The looney part is not your belief that mankind may be doing something that contributes to global temperature change. That's fine. How much man can affect things is debatable. The moonbat part is that you would have our country attempt to "do something about it". Your contention that just based on the unlikely scenario that mankind is massively affecting global temperatures, and maybe it is possible that carbon emissions is partially a factor, then you would have us take steps which have no possibility of helping the situation but will absolutely destroy our economy. For what? So you can feel good about yourself? You would punish the middle class and poor with even fewer jobs and higher energy costs. Why? Why are you so cruel? Do you hate poor people?

    I don't think you or most "environmentalist types" purposely want to hurt Americans. I choose to believe that you simply have no clue about the consequences of the policies you (environmentalist global warming types) push.[/QUOTE]

    I get the idea that you think because I or anyone believes mankind is at least partly responsible, that we therefore support every idea that Washington or other politicians around the globe come up with.

    Listen, the answer might be as simple as a machine that mimics photosynthesis in an amplified fashion, offsetting CO2 emissions. Maybe it's very, very large machine that we have only about two dozen across the country or maybe it's a smaller and with greater proliferation. Perhaps this technology would take government investment or incentives or straight up a government research program. If you want to address climate change through ingenuity and investment, I'm on board with that.

    I don't know the answer, but it seems like we never get a debate about solutions. It's always "Climate Change/Global Warming is NOT happening!" then "OK, it's happening, but it's natural, it's happened before" then "Scientific consensus is infallible now? Don't you know they've ALL got an agenda? It's an exaggeration!"

  15. #55
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4438532]I get the idea that you think because I or anyone believes mankind is at least partly responsible, that we therefore support every idea that Washington or other politicians around the globe come up with.

    Listen, the answer might be as simple as a machine that mimics photosynthesis in an amplified fashion, offsetting CO2 emissions. Maybe it's very, very large machine that we have only about two dozen across the country or maybe it's a smaller and with greater proliferation. Perhaps this technology would take government investment or incentives or straight up a government research program. If you want to address climate change through ingenuity and investment, I'm on board with that.

    I don't know the answer, but it seems like we never get a debate about solutions. It's always "Climate Change/Global Warming is NOT happening!" then "OK, it's happening, but it's natural, it's happened before" then "Scientific consensus is infallible now? Don't you know they've ALL got an agenda? It's an exaggeration!"[/QUOTE]

    There are no real solutions to this problem at the moment. There won't be for many many years. Only when natural resources get over the inevitable peak and begin to seriously decline. Then private enterprise will find the solutions naturally. The last thing I want to do is give government free reign to hand out money to more Bundlers and Donors like the Obama Administration's failed "green jobs initiative". We have to take lessons from our failures. Obama's crony capitalism jobs plan was a complete and utter failure. It was actually a disaster. Billions wasted on nothing. Enough is enough.

  16. #56
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4438586]There are no real solutions to this problem at the moment. There won't be for many many years. Only when natural resources get over the inevitable peak and begin to seriously decline. Then private enterprise will find the solutions naturally. The last thing I want to do is give government free reign to hand out money to more Bundlers and Donors like the Obama Administration's failed "green jobs initiative". We have to take lessons from our failures. Obama's crony capitalism jobs plan was a complete and utter failure. It was actually a disaster. Billions wasted on nothing. Enough is enough.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, we know... Solyndra.

    The government must never invest again!

    We have no solutions now, you are definitely correct on that - but my point is, that's because there is still a debate over whether climate change, or man accelerated climate change, is a hoax. Look at this thread. I believe you, Trades and JetPotato to be some of the most intelligent conservatives and posters on this board - and the three of you are disputing NASA on science!

    I've got Neil Degrasse Tyson on my side. Game. Set. Match. ;)

  17. #57
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,241
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4438800]Yes, we know... Solyndra.

    The government must never invest again!

    We have no solutions now, you are definitely correct on that - but my point is, that's because there is still a debate over whether climate change, or man accelerated climate change, is a hoax. Look at this thread. I believe you, Trades and JetPotato to be some of the most intelligent conservatives and posters on this board - and the three of you are disputing NASA on science!

    I've got Neil Degrasse Tyson on my side. Game. Set. Match. ;)[/QUOTE]

    What about all of the astronauts that are also disputing NASA on science? Besides why would Obama's Muslim Outreach Program be the definitive source for science?

  18. #58
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4438800]Yes, we know... Solyndra.

    The government must never invest again!

    We have no solutions now, you are definitely correct on that - but my point is, that's because there is still a debate over whether climate change, or man accelerated climate change, is a hoax. Look at this thread. I believe you, Trades and JetPotato to be some of the most intelligent conservatives and posters on this board - and the three of you are disputing NASA on science!

    I've got Neil Degrasse Tyson on my side. Game. Set. Match. ;)[/QUOTE]

    You are not reading our statements clearly. No one is disagreeing with science. There is no proof that the cause of warming is carbon emissions. Even if there was there is no chance that Americans changing out behavior would have a significant effect on the outcome. That is the crux of the issue. We are punishing ourselves by not exploiting our resources for what? The outcomes wont be effected by any of this. The entire world is rightfully laughing at us because of this. There was a time 20 years ago when our economic situation was so strong that we could afford to do these type of self indulgent policies. That time has passed.

    Pollution is bad. Regardless of warming we should continue to do everything within reason to limit or reduce pollution. Air quality is important. The place where you lose me is this argument of impending doomsday. That is a call to drastic action that I completely disagree with.

    As for government investments I believe that the government has no business investing in private companies. It is as simple as that. This type of "investment" invites cronyism and waste. It should be banned. It is the process of picking who and what to invest in that concerns me. Obama's administration gave 80% of their 150Billion in green jobs stimulus money to Obama bundlers. I don't trust politicians to distribute tax dollars in this way. I don't care if it is a R or a D I dont trust them. The practice should be eliminated completely. If you want more green tech "investments" the only way to insure fairness in the process is to focus on the demand side (tax credits to consumers). Even that is very questionable but at least it reduces the ability of politicians to f it up.

  19. #59
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,241
    I don't remember the exact numbers but the Kyoto treaty was going to cost Billions if not Trillions to hopefully reduce the warming by something like .6 degrees +/- .5 degrees. In other words a fortune for negligible effects. Add to that the we have to fudge the numbers because the ends justify the means emails, the original data not being available for peer review due to "poor record keeping" and a lot of other debacles and I just can't put any faith in the research.

  20. #60
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,787
    Funny that citizens of a country that spent trillions on nuclear weapons that could kill every living thing on earth...have a hard time spending billions on stuff that could prolong life.

    Priorities. We haz them. :P;):D

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us