Climate and Weather

espola said:
No matter what we do, it will be seen as unfair by some, so we should do nothing?
Click to expand...
That’s a tough question. It depends on cost benefit, whether fundamental rights are affected, and winners and losers. Sometimes there are no easy fixes…I’m convinced leftists are missing the part of the brain that acknowledges that. For example, let’s assume climate change could be solved if every year we sacrifice a young child to the volcano gods? Unfair to the young child and his family but benefit to the overwhelming majority. Quite the trolley problem. Afterwards we can ask the volcano gods if they are full and if they’d like another sacrifice…maybe a giraffe named Melman.
dad4 said:
I stand corrected. For MOST people, it gets rational once we agree on some basic facts. (It is happening, we are causing it, and it will cause significant problems over the long term.)

A few people, like you, prefer to throw sand in the air.

There is a rational discussion to be had. A rational discussion does not include claims like "life is over in 10 years", "nothing is happening", or "standards of living back 200 years". You apparently do not wish to be part of that discussion.
Click to expand...
Ps the other problem is (at least until Twitter x) you have almost everyone if the solution involves driving Teslas, drinking la croix and eating edamame. When you get to something as low hanging fruit like nuclear the pitch forks start coming out. When you take away their meat, consign dogs to the graveyards and demand an end to cheat airflights people start rebelling. It leads you down the authoritarian route (with the elites cheating)….same as Covid.
 
Grace T. said:
That’s a tough question. It depends on cost benefit, whether fundamental rights are affected, and winners and losers. Sometimes there are no easy fixes…I’m convinced leftists are missing the part of the brain that acknowledges that. For example, let’s assume climate change could be solved if every year we sacrifice a young child to the volcano gods? Unfair to the young child and his family but benefit to the overwhelming majority. Quite the trolley problem. Afterwards we can ask the volcano gods if they are full and if they’d like another sacrifice…maybe a giraffe named Melman.

Ps the other problem is (at least until Twitter x) you have almost everyone if the solution involves driving Teslas, drinking la croix and eating edamame. When you get to something as low hanging fruit like nuclear the pitch forks start coming out. When you take away their meat, consign dogs to the graveyards and demand an end to cheat airflights people start rebelling. It leads you down the authoritarian route (with the elites cheating)….same as Covid.
Click to expand...
Your thinking is twisted.
 
Participants at this year's Burning Man Festival are finding out first-hand what happens to a dry lake bed when it rains.

nordot.app

Burning Man revelers stranded in Nevada desert by rain and mud ｜ Reuters

(Reuters) -Tens of thousands of revelers attending the Burning Man festival in the Nevada desert have been asked to shelter in place and conserve food and water on Saturday after a rainstorm turned the site into mud. Access to and from Black Rock City, the event's site, was closed "for the...
nordot.app nordot.app
 
Nobody denies the climate is changing.

It has always changed.

C02 levels have been substantially higher in the past without runaway warming.

People don't realize what a small percentage CO2 makes up of the entire atmosphere.

It isn't anywhere even close to making up 1% of the atmosphere. CO2 is currently at about 1/24th of 1%. The recent change has taken us from about 1/36th of 1% to the 1/24th of one percent.

Or to look at it another way...at 280 ppm you had another 999,720 parts made up of elements that make up the atmosphere. At 410...we have 999,590 parts of a million that isn't CO2.

What a number of scientists have argued is CO2 makes up such an infinitesimal small part of the atmosphere that it cannot be the main driver.

The other complaint is that people like dad assume one outcome...and that is catastrophic warming. The manmade global warming THEORY postulates a wide range of potential outcomes.i will repeat that again...I wide range of outcomes. But you only hear gov and the press push one possible though not proven outcome. Those models used are still in their infancy and not anywhere close to reliable.

Those other scientists who offer a different opinion are handled by the press and gov in the same manner they did to scientists questioning COVID and the various measures put in place.
 
Desert Hound said:
Nobody denies the climate is changing.

It has always changed.

C02 levels have been substantially higher in the past without runaway warming.

People don't realize what a small percentage CO2 makes up of the entire atmosphere.

It isn't anywhere even close to making up 1% of the atmosphere. CO2 is currently at about 1/24th of 1%. The recent change has taken us from about 1/36th of 1% to the 1/24th of one percent.

Or to look at it another way...at 280 ppm you had another 999,720 parts made up of elements that make up the atmosphere. At 410...we have 999,590 parts of a million that isn't CO2.

What a number of scientists have argued is CO2 makes up such an infinitesimal small part of the atmosphere that it cannot be the main driver.

The other complaint is that people like dad assume one outcome...and that is catastrophic warming. The manmade global warming THEORY postulates a wide range of potential outcomes.i will repeat that again...I wide range of outcomes. But you only hear gov and the press push one possible though not proven outcome. Those models used are still in their infancy and not anywhere close to reliable.

Those other scientists who offer a different opinion are handled by the press and gov in the same manner they did to scientists questioning COVID and the various measures put in place.
Click to expand...
Brilliant!

Please continue.
 
Desert Hound said:
Nobody denies the climate is changing.

It has always changed.

C02 levels have been substantially higher in the past without runaway warming.

People don't realize what a small percentage CO2 makes up of the entire atmosphere.

It isn't anywhere even close to making up 1% of the atmosphere. CO2 is currently at about 1/24th of 1%. The recent change has taken us from about 1/36th of 1% to the 1/24th of one percent.

Or to look at it another way...at 280 ppm you had another 999,720 parts made up of elements that make up the atmosphere. At 410...we have 999,590 parts of a million that isn't CO2.

What a number of scientists have argued is CO2 makes up such an infinitesimal small part of the atmosphere that it cannot be the main driver.

The other complaint is that people like dad assume one outcome...and that is catastrophic warming. The manmade global warming THEORY postulates a wide range of potential outcomes.i will repeat that again...I wide range of outcomes. But you only hear gov and the press push one possible though not proven outcome. Those models used are still in their infancy and not anywhere close to reliable.

Those other scientists who offer a different opinion are handled by the press and gov in the same manner they did to scientists questioning COVID and the various measures put in place.
Click to expand...
 
Desert Hound said:
We can tell you haven't thought about the issue enough to watch and listen to various points of view made by a variety of scientists.

You read and just regurgitate what you see in the Times or other similar
Click to expand...
DH.. that's Richards M.O. it's always been.

My issue with this is the thought by some people that we don't have to do anything vs the people in the sky is falling camp. The irony in that is one group proclaims they have science on their side while ignoring ANY science that doesnʻt support their theories. Richard falls into that group.
 
Multi Sport said:
DH.. that's Richards M.O. it's always been.

My issue with this is the thought by some people that we don't have to do anything vs the people in the sky is falling camp. The irony in that is one group proclaims they have science on their side while ignoring ANY science that doesnʻt support their theories. Richard falls into that group.
Click to expand...
I fall into more the Bjorn Lomberg camp.

He believes the earth is warming and humans are certainly part of that.

He likes and advocates working on getting cleaner so to speak. He also believes the billions we waste on many green energy boondoggles would be better off spent on ensuring or helping billions get clean water and reliable energy. Can save countless lives doing that. We waste money on pie of the sky stuff that advocates will save lives in a hundred years...when we should be spending now to help billions now in terribly impoverished conditions. He also believes we are resilient enough to adapt to a warmer planet with current and future technical prowess.
 
espola said:
Wrong again.
Click to expand...
You have a one sided view of every topic.

You claim to be independent, but your arguments always mirror the talking points of the Dem party. You seem unaware of a point of view or fact that isn't talked about in your narrow news sources.

You have no nuance in what you post and you certainly never respond with a reason why your initial though or link is right or wrong. As in you seen incapable of any back and forth...either defending your argument or explaining why you think the other poster is wrong.

Try articulating your position(s). You may find the back and forth more interesting.
 
Desert Hound said:
You have a one sided view of every topic.

You claim to be independent, but your arguments always mirror the talking points of the Dem party. You seem unaware of a point of view or fact that isn't talked about in your narrow news sources.

You have no nuance in what you post and you certainly never respond with a reason why your initial though or link is right or wrong. As in you seen incapable of any back and forth...either defending your argument or explaining why you think the other poster is wrong.

Try articulating your position(s). You may find the back and forth more interesting.
Click to expand...
I have been articulating my position for years (you can look it up). It gets old after a while.

But as a friend of mine once said about a supposedly "foolproof" design -- never underestimate the persistence of fools.
 
espola said:
I have been articulating my position for years (you can look it up). It gets old after a while.

But as a friend of mine once said about a supposedly "foolproof" design -- never underestimate the persistence of fools.
Click to expand...
No you never actually engage in a back and forth with anyone.

Been here for yrs. You post stuff, but when questioned never articulate a position. Same thing happens when you say a post is lame or disagree. You never lay out an actual argument.
 
Desert Hound said:
You have a one sided view of every topic.

You claim to be independent, but your arguments always mirror the talking points of the Dem party. You seem unaware of a point of view or fact that isn't talked about in your narrow news sources.

You have no nuance in what you post and you certainly never respond with a reason why your initial though or link is right or wrong. As in you seen incapable of any back and forth...either defending your argument or explaining why you think the other poster is wrong.

Try articulating your position(s). You may find the back and forth more interesting.
Click to expand...

This one isn’t really a back and forth kind of issue.

The scientific back and forth is over questions like, “Will it take 50 or 100 years for sea levels to rise by 2 meters?”. Or, “what will happen to the average frequency of Category 5 hurricanes if global temperature rise by 3 Celcius?”. It isn’t over whether we are causing CO2 and temperatures to rise in a fundamentally different way than it has before.
 
Desert Hound said:
No you never actually engage in a back and forth with anyone.

Been here for yrs. You post stuff, but when questioned never articulate a position. Same thing happens when you say a post is lame or disagree. You never lay out an actual argument.
Click to expand...
Your long post a little way up the page just repeated old nonsense that has been beaten to death on this forum more than once. I have already done my duty responding to that crap in the past, but it still cycles around every few months.

I am amused. Please continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top