Who doubts global warming now? (giggle)
- Thread starter Jason76
- Start date
I don't think anyone ever really doubted global warming, except maybe Trump, although he's extremely pro-business and pro-industry, so it's very convenient for him to do so.
The main problem with tackling it is that the solutions basically involve crippling your economy or taking decades to make any head-way.
The main problem with tackling it is that the solutions basically involve crippling your economy or taking decades to make any head-way.
Not to mention only Westerners would do it. In fact, oddly enough, it was lefty communist nations who polluted the most - and now China (maybe post-communist) still is.
China is doing it to quickly grow their economy and national power, not a surprise, to be honest. I wouldn't expect them to slow down any-time soon.
More than 97% of the world's scientists agree that global warming is real and caused by human actions. And the effects of global warming are already happening. I'm not sure how anyone can argue with that at this point.
Quite a number of conservatives have - even to the point of calling it a global hoax, writing books about it etc..
The problem with the climate change debate is that many people who hold radical positions on the adoption of green energy, and the negative effects of fossil fuels, conflate everyday occurrences and reserved scientific papers into alarmism.
Yes, data shows a small increase in temperature measurements across the planet over the past couple decades.
Yes, many scientists have connected this increase to human activity.
Those statements see little dispute among reasonable skeptics. Other statements frequently made by politicians and activists are disputed, however.
No, computer models have been unable to successfully predict future climate change. Alarming computer models have been touted as evidence of upcoming catastrophic change, with no historical track record to back them up.
No, predictions of “doom” that specify a point of no return have not held true.
No, weather is not climate. Hurricanes and snow storms do not provide proof either way, only confirmation bias to either side.
No, record heat measurements in cities are not due solely to the effects of greenhouse gases. The prevalence of pavement and concrete in modern cities significantly increases urban temperature measurements. This is of course human activity as well, but has causes other than greenhouse gasses. And yes, this does not greatly effect readings in remote areas.
No, global warming does not cause wildfires. Idiots with campfires and cigarettes do, which is also human activity, of course.
No, the academic consensus on climate change does not extend to these issues. There is an academic consensus that warming occurs and that human influence is a leading cause. That’s it.
No, green energy is not affordable enough to replace energy sources that create emissions, unfortunately.
Most people in this debate just don’t understand what the other side is saying. Most of those who mix science and politics don’t seem to have a proper appreciation for how science actually works. Science is a practice. A discipline. A way of thinking, and a set of problem solving methodologies. Not a book of facts and a hammer to beat them home with.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#1294dcb11157
Yes, data shows a small increase in temperature measurements across the planet over the past couple decades.
Yes, many scientists have connected this increase to human activity.
Those statements see little dispute among reasonable skeptics. Other statements frequently made by politicians and activists are disputed, however.
No, computer models have been unable to successfully predict future climate change. Alarming computer models have been touted as evidence of upcoming catastrophic change, with no historical track record to back them up.
No, predictions of “doom” that specify a point of no return have not held true.
No, weather is not climate. Hurricanes and snow storms do not provide proof either way, only confirmation bias to either side.
No, record heat measurements in cities are not due solely to the effects of greenhouse gases. The prevalence of pavement and concrete in modern cities significantly increases urban temperature measurements. This is of course human activity as well, but has causes other than greenhouse gasses. And yes, this does not greatly effect readings in remote areas.
No, global warming does not cause wildfires. Idiots with campfires and cigarettes do, which is also human activity, of course.
No, the academic consensus on climate change does not extend to these issues. There is an academic consensus that warming occurs and that human influence is a leading cause. That’s it.
No, green energy is not affordable enough to replace energy sources that create emissions, unfortunately.
Most people in this debate just don’t understand what the other side is saying. Most of those who mix science and politics don’t seem to have a proper appreciation for how science actually works. Science is a practice. A discipline. A way of thinking, and a set of problem solving methodologies. Not a book of facts and a hammer to beat them home with.
That is not quite correct.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#1294dcb11157
Last edited:
The deserts of the world could possibly provide enough solar power.
That’s expensive. Someone has to wipe all that god damned dust off the mirrors or panels. 😛
Affiliates
