I'm not hearing much about global warming now days.

vantexan

Well-Known Member
The thing about climate change is the ones pushing it aren't trustworthy. It could be true, but it could also be a big power grab by those who want to control everything and everyone. Literally in order to comply with what they say we have to comply with would require a complete transformation of how we do pretty much everything. And interestingly enough doing so would require massive transfers of wealth from advanced nations to developing nations. Which raises suspicion as to what the real motives are. Not to mention proponents in the U.S. would greatly inhibit our economy while there's no guarantees that the other biggest polluters, the Chinese and Indians, would ever comply in a meaningful way. But doesn't matter to the true believers here, social justice requires it. Oops, I meant we must save the environment.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives

Catatonic

Nine Lives
The thing about climate change is the ones pushing it aren't trustworthy. It could be true, but it could also be a big power grab by those who want to control everything and everyone.

That is one of the first concerns I usually have with these "common sense" deductions that people jump on.
Setting up a reliable study is not as simple as most people use when doing so.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Why don't we just nuke all the overcrowded and uneducated populations ?
It would serve two purposes ; less humans to pollute the earth ( reducing man's impact of climate changes ) and free up new lands to be conquered .
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Yes, and the vast majority of scientists are in on the conspiracy!
Also, aliens, amiright¿
But scientists have been caught altering data because they weren't getting the outcomes they wanted. That's why the motives of those who push this are often suspect. Look at what they were going to do with carbon credits. Any company anywhere, whether they were truly in business or not, could sell credits to the companies who need them. Thus a registered company in Uganda which isn't really polluting at all could sell credits to a huge emitter of carbon like UPS. UPS would either be incentivised to do better to prevent buying of credits, or it would just continue buying the credits it needed to operate. Either way the poor people in Uganda would get money. Or wherever they bought them. UPS would see a reduction in profit, possibly a lowering of its workers' pay, to be in compliance and the wealth would be spread around. Seems global warming is the perfect vehicle for redistributing wealth around the world as if passed and enforced by the U.N all companies everywhere that pollute would have to seek out credits they can purchase to offset their emissions. And anyone can set up a business to sell them credits.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
But scientists have been caught altering data because they weren't getting the outcomes they wanted. That's why the motives of those who push this are often suspect. Look at what they were going to do with carbon credits. Any company anywhere, whether they were truly in business or not, could sell credits to the companies who need them. Thus a registered company in Uganda which isn't really polluting at all could sell credits to a huge emitter of carbon like UPS. UPS would either be incentivised to do better to prevent buying of credits, or it would just continue buying the credits it needed to operate. Either way the poor people in Uganda would get money. Or wherever they bought them. UPS would see a reduction in profit, possibly a lowering of its workers' pay, to be in compliance and the wealth would be spread around. Seems global warming is the perfect vehicle for redistributing wealth around the world as if passed and enforced by the U.N all companies everywhere that pollute would have to seek out credits they can purchase to offset their emissions. And anyone can set up a business to sell them credits.
Wow you're misinformed.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Tremendous rebuttal. That's exactly what Obama was selling and luckily the Repubs won the House in 2010. Dems wanted control of healthcare first so got that passed before they could implement this scheme, also known as cap-and-trade.
Nah bro, you are fundamentally misinformed on the entire carbon credit/offset scheme. The system is bad enough in its own right, the crap you just spewed about it is totally unnecessary. As usual you Republican cuckservatives have an aversion to truth.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Nah bro, you are fundamentally misinformed on the entire carbon offset scheme. The system is bad enough in its own right, the crap you just spewed about it is totally unnecessary. As usual you Republican cuckservatives have an aversion to truth.
Easy for you to say, only I saw an Obama interview in 2008 where he explained cap-and-trade. If you know a different version then explain it to me. Whether you are or not, there are those on the far Left totally dedicated to the idea of completely restructuring the world to make everyone as equal as possible. And cap-and-trade would just be the latest idea to implement that. Which makes me wonder about the validity of climate change. Are we ruining the planet? We probably are doing damage. But to what extent is it us, and to what extent is it a natural cycle? And are there some who jump on this to promote their idea of social justice? And are some playing on our fears to get wealthy? Al Gore, for example, has made more than $100 million and yet he lives in a huge house and flies everywhere in a private jet known for polluting. Does he even believe it? Most of his predictions haven't come true.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
But scientists have been caught altering data because they weren't getting the outcomes they wanted. That's why the motives of those who push this are often suspect. Look at what they were going to do with carbon credits. Any company anywhere, whether they were truly in business or not, could sell credits to the companies who need them. Thus a registered company in Uganda which isn't really polluting at all could sell credits to a huge emitter of carbon like UPS. UPS would either be incentivised to do better to prevent buying of credits, or it would just continue buying the credits it needed to operate. Either way the poor people in Uganda would get money. Or wherever they bought them. UPS would see a reduction in profit, possibly a lowering of its workers' pay, to be in compliance and the wealth would be spread around. Seems global warming is the perfect vehicle for redistributing wealth around the world as if passed and enforced by the U.N all companies everywhere that pollute would have to seek out credits they can purchase to offset their emissions. And anyone can set up a business to sell them credits.

Van you're seriously trying to reason with that clown? He shot his wad about 2 or three weeks ago with you and it was surprisingly coherent. Won't happen again. I seriously think a chipmunk ran across his keyboard and produced the stuff a few weeks ago anyway.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Van you're seriously trying to reason with that clown? He shot his wad about 2 or three weeks ago with you and it was surprisingly coherent. Won't happen again. I seriously think a chipmunk ran across his keyboard and produced the stuff a few weeks ago anyway.
All I can do is just put my point of view out there and let others decide if it's valid. I could say the sky is blue and he'd disagree just because I said it.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
All I can do is just put my point of view out there and let others decide if it's valid. I could say the sky is blue and he'd disagree just because I said it.
I think it's already happened. Talking past him to others doesn't seem to matter much either, as noted by their refusal to accept concrete facts.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
gistemp2-600x456.jpg
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
A standalone chart in itself is not impressive. If one stipulates the numbers are correct, the next hurdle is to prove why these numbers are increasing. Do that and many will listen. Knock yourself out. By the way, "consensus" is not science, it is merely agreement.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2


  • American Association for the Advancement of Science
    "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

  • American Chemical Society
    "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

  • American Geophysical Union
    "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

  • American Medical Association
    "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

  • American Meteorological Society
    "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

  • American Physical Society
    "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

  • The Geological Society of America
    "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10


  • U.S. National Academy of Sciences
    "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

  • U.S. Global Change Research Program
    "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12
INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

    “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14
 
Top