M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Hottest year on record.
Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level
- Status
M
Michael68
Guest
But not the hottest in historyHottest year on record.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Does that mean you will not consider turning off lights not in use, bringing your own shopping bags, running multiple errands, moving closer to work/school on your next move, hypermiling, becoming more energy & resource efficient & conservative, or going on alt energy when it is available, affordable, and feasible?
Iām not sure what you mean by āthe Democrats agenda,ā but itās a no brainer what we personally have to do ā and there are 1000s of things to choose from depending on our individual proclivities. Choose do to a few, or choose to do many. Choose those things that save money or donāt cost, or choose those things that are easily and donāt take much effort.
The choices are ours.
In addition, if we want to consider gov regs, there is one I would like to see: āFee & Dividend,ā in which a fee is put on each barrel of oil and ton of coal that comes out of the ground or into a port, then ALL that money is divvied up and given to all the SocSec card holders each month, sort of the way Bush gave us back some of our taxes.
That way people could use that money to pay for higher energy bills (due to the fee), or invest in energy/resource efficiency/conservation and/or alt energy and really be on the road to prosperity.
Or, if you do not want go for Fee & Dividend, thatās fine too.
The bulk of CC mitigation will have to come from personal choices, whether or not the gov incentivizes these.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Yes, the great GW extinction periods went up much higher in which 95% of life on earth died out (like the end-Permian) ā to 6C and greater above our pre-industrial level. Which is what we could see by 2100 or within a century after that.
So the current level of warming is only mainly harming some poor people around the world, and not much harm to the rich, like us. So I do understand the lack of interest in this topic.
If people are concerned about their grandchildren and their children and grandchildren, who may be around in 2100 and thereafter, then it would be wise to mitigate CC. Otherwise I guess we could just ignore and deny it.
Itās just that something in my personal make-up makes be unable to ignore it, even tho God did not bless us with children. I just have to do my part, no matter how much the denialists try to dissuade me from doing it. Iām very stubborn on that.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
What would be the hottest in history? What historical eras are included?
For which country, or globally?
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
PLEASE stop with the name-calling.
I noticed this myself.
I figured it to be just a feature of the argument anymore given that there is never a logical point without some ad hominem dig to go with it.
It is corrosive to credibility.
J
joshman1
Guest
I mean, come on. There was no name calling there. Not sure how else would be a better way to frame that reality.
D
dmelosi
Guest
I donāt think it is name calling.
I view this as similar to the label I give most Democrats āPro-Deathā because of their staunch pro abortion stance.
There should be a 3rd label for the climate status of a person, āUnsure but studyingā
On the āPro-Abortionā label for democrats, would be more of a narrow 3rd label as so many are afraid to be outside of what their party insists on.
Take a look at the pro-life womenās group that wanted to sponsor the womenās march. They were denied to be a sponsor. This womenās pro-life group wear and openly promote that they are pro-life. (that march was about abortion rights march and little else)
I think if a person denies man made global warming, denialist is ok. I am having a hard time believing much of what the democratic party says because they insist on killing of the most innocent being a right. But am looking into it further because of the Popeās view.
J
joshman1
Guest
You can disagree with certain parts of a party platform.
D
dmelosi
Guest
Of course.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I think we can stop saying ādenialistsā when everyone stops saying āalarmistsā.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I donāt mind alarmists. They are implying someone who calls āfireā in a crowded theater when there is no fire, causing a stampede and injury.
But what if there really is a fire ā youād want to inform people so they could file out in an orderly fashion. The person would still be an alarmist.
However, the crowded theater analogy breaks down, bec what would be the response to CC IF people really believed it was happening? Stampede on aisle 12 at Home Depot as people rush to buy LED lights, their shopping carts colliding
OTOH, ādenialistā is indeed fitting, since the last āskepticsā have come to accept CC. There just are not any open-minded, willing to change with good evidence skeptics out there anymore. Perhaps a distinction can be made between ānaĆÆve denialistā who simply believes and parrots all that the professional CC denialists have to say and "hard-core denialist who have heard all the scientific evidence and explanations, but still refuse to accept.
BTW, that webpage in question - those names were not the worst of the skeptics, so I probably should not have used ādenialist.ā My bad.
C
CthgeDelendaEst
Guest
I havenāt read the replies to this thread, but please explain the medieval warm period and how humanity is still here. Please explain how giving more money to elite hypocrites like Al Gore will make a whit of difference. Lastly, please explain how putting draconian shackles on the West, which is already pretty clean and environmentally conscious, is going to achieve a thing when China is belching noxious fumes into the air 24/7/365?
L
lynnvinc
Guest
weāve covered all that at CAF over the past 5 years on various threads. you can find out about those questions (which are over the top) on your own.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Does it need to be? Would that make a difference to you?
M
Michael68
Guest
Sure it makes a difference. Why was there āglobal warmingā before man was even here? Yeah, that makes a big difference because the agenda is to say man is causing āglobal warmingā when history says otherwise.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion. There are different kinds of global warming. There is slow global warming and fast global warming. The changes that have taken place in pre-history were all natural, but were fairly slow. The changes have happened since the industrial age have been fast. They have also been ānaturalā in the sense that rising temperature is the ānaturalā response to higher CO2 levels, and higher CO2 levels are the ānaturalā result of burning fossil fuels. And man is part of nature. So yes, the changes are natural, and caused by man.
Meaningless.
There is always someone behaving badly.
It is not an excuse for our own behavior.
It would make a difference if they would include the why.
My area of the country did not go above 100F last year.
We usually spend about 2 weeks at that temperature range.
So while everyone here is remarking how coolasthma year was, the media is hyping up that it was really hot.
I want to see their data. I have reason to doubt.
- Status