View Poll Results: What is your opinion on global warming?

Voters
175. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's happening and we're to blame

    88 50.29%
  • It's happening but it's not man made

    21 12.00%
  • It's not even happening, except according to the cycles of nature

    48 27.43%
  • Undecided / No opinion

    18 10.29%
Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 101617181920
Results 1,901 to 1,939 of 1939

Thread: Still Believe in Global Warming?

  1. #1901
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    " Using climate models, we estimate"

    Like I said, just a fudge factor they can't measure.

    Just like everything else. None of it can be measured.

    So they get a programmer to write a software simulation about it. They fart that out and pretend they know things.
    Another example of how clueless you are about science. You realize that pretty much every study or prediction is an estimate right, with margins of error and confidence intervals? Like literally all science that isn't measuring something currently happening is an estimate.

    Take some time and read an actual scientific paper and then come back here. It doesn't even have to be about climate, it would just be nice if you had a decent grasp on anything remotely scientific.

  2. #1902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Show me where I can get the solar fluctuation measurements from 1880. Your link says they have them. Gee, I hope they're not lying about that.

    And even if you actually had measurements from 1880, which you don't, how does that rule out a 1,000 year solar cycle? A 10,000 year solar cycle? A 22million year solar cycle?
    Good questions.

  3. #1903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Show me where I can get the solar fluctuation measurements from 1880. Your link says they have them. Gee, I hope they're not lying about that.

    And even if you actually had measurements from 1880, which you don't, how does that rule out a 1,000 year solar cycle? A 10,000 year solar cycle? A 22million year solar cycle?
    Good questions.
    But what’s the point of stating that we don’t know everything? Just tell me where I’m going to die, so I never go there.

  4. #1904

    Default

    From Taleb’s thinking:

    Taleb, Mystery and Conservatism | The Brussels Journal
    Taleb, Mystery and Conservatism
    From the desk of Richard Cocks on Sun, 2014-02-16 22:39

    Nassim-Nicholas-Taleb.jpg
    Nassim Nicholas Taleb is a Greek Orthodox Christian from Lebanon; the Levant. In the course of his book Antifragile, he promotes skepticism, theism, tradition, the writings of the stoics and seeks to restrict the claims of theory and "nave rationalism."

    Elsewhere I have said that often theory seems to make us stupider than we would be without the theory.
    ...

    “Thinkers devoid of intuition and emotion make a terrible impression on me. However, it is hard to point out the violence these thinkers do to the subtleties of human life. Our primary relationship with the world is not a theoretical one, thus a proper orientation to life allows for the unintelligible and doesn’t seek an unreasonable demand for clarity and explication. “

    https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/5121

  5. #1905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Show me where I can get the solar fluctuation measurements from 1880. Your link says they have them. Gee, I hope they're not lying about that.

    And even if you actually had measurements from 1880, which you don't, how does that rule out a 1,000 year solar cycle? A 10,000 year solar cycle? A 22million year solar cycle?
    Good questions.
    These are the very first questions you ask when it comes to "climate science". Climate science doesn't have any empirical evidence. Asking these types of questions is a fast track refutation of most "climate science" claims.
    When they say CO2 is causing warming, ask for the measurements.
    When they say CO2 will raise temperatures 2 degrees, ask for the empirical evidence.
    When they say clouds will cause a positive feedback loop, causing more warming, ask for the empirical evidence.
    When they say CO2 warmed the climate in the past, ask for the empirical evidence.

    There is none.

    See Marcel's post below about aerosols? Same thing. No measurements. No empirical evidence. Once you know this you can't help wondering how we got here.

    What empirical evidence they DO have also .meets the same fate. NASA's GISS starts in 1880. Worldwide temperature record in 1880? NASA had thermometers in China in 1880? Give me a break.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 16-10-2019 at 05:19 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  6. #1906

    Default

    Something more to think about:


    Shades of grey – understanding grey swans

    “Economist and Financial Times columnist Tim Harford recently wrote that we humans are not just poor at predicting the future, but we are particularly bad at visualising the consequences of bad outcomes. Harford says we should not just ask “will this happen?” but also “what would we do if it did?”

    This approach, says Harford, helps us think sensibly about negative outcomes. One technique is to conduct a “pre-mortem”, a hypothetical post-mortem. This helps us to do our contingency planning in advance and mitigate the impact of those bad outcomes.

    Benjamin Franklin once famously said that “all cats are grey in the dark”, or in other words, features that cannot be discerned are not important. But the colour of swans does matter and we needn’t be in the dark about them. Identifying the grey swans, and understanding their probabilities and their impact, can help us to plan better in our investing, business or personal lives.”

    https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...ng-grey-swans/


  7. #1907
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,968

    Default

    I couldn't resist:


















    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  8. #1908

    Default

    Sea-Level Rise From Antarctic Ice Cliffs May Be Overestimated Because of Faulty Assumptions

    “Scientists have assumed that ice cliffs taller than 90 meters (about the height of the Statue of Liberty) would rapidly collapse under their own weight, contributing to more than 6 feet of sea-level rise by the end of the century — enough to completely flood Boston and other coastal cities. But now MITresearchers have found that this particular prediction may be overestimated. “

    https://scitechdaily.com/sea-level-r...y-assumptions/

  9. #1909

    Default

    Why I don’t ‘believe’ in ‘science’ – Climate Etc.

    https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/26/w...ve-in-science/

  10. #1910
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    ^That whole thing is unnecessarily pedantic. When someone says "I believe in science", it's generally understood that it's meant as "I accept the findings that the scientific method has found". Even with a general consensus there's always going to be dissenting voices, so the fact that some (very few) scientists are skeptical of climate science doesn't make the statement "I believe in science" invalid.

  11. #1911

    Default

    2 cases On practical challenges of meeting emissions reduction:

    MIT Technology Review:

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...-by-a-century/

    But for all its regulatory achievements, California also offers a case study in just how hard it is to make progress on the only thing that really matters: reducing emissions.

    Meanwhile on limits of net-zero, slow travel:
    https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/st...131267591?s=21

  12. #1912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snail View Post
    2 cases On practical challenges of meeting emissions reduction:

    MIT Technology Review:

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...-by-a-century/

    But for all its regulatory achievements, California also offers a case study in just how hard it is to make progress on the only thing that really matters: reducing emissions.

    Meanwhile on limits of net-zero, slow travel:
    https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/st...131267591?s=21
    Well, the costs haven't changed. So they've been lying about the economics of net zero for 40 years.

    What else do you think they might be lying about?

    And poor Greta, can't get another ride on a 10 million dollar racing yacht dedicated just for her? We stole her childhood and her dreams, now we're stealing her adolescence. LOL How long before she's flying all over the place like all the other hypocrites?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 03-11-2019 at 08:25 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  13. #1913
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    ^That whole thing is unnecessarily pedantic. When someone says "I believe in science", it's generally understood that it's meant as "I accept the findings that the scientific method has found". Even with a general consensus there's always going to be dissenting voices, so the fact that some (very few) scientists are skeptical of climate science doesn't make the statement "I believe in science" invalid.
    Maybe it's because I was raised as a conservative Christian but I am leery of phrases like "I believe the science" or "unite behind the science." Phrases like these put science on the same level as religious belief. Unlike religion, science is about establishing facts based on observation, measurement and experimentation. Science is about going where the evidence takes you even if this disproves pre-conceived biases or hypotheses.

    The evidence of human caused global warming is overwhelming. But that doesn't mean there is necessarily a scientific consensus about the rate of future warming or its impacts.

  14. #1914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    science is about establishing facts based on observation, measurement and experimentation.
    What "overwhelming" "observation, measurement, or experiment" do you have that the current warming was caused by man made CO2, and not just a natural variation?

    Surely not the hockey stick graph.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 03-11-2019 at 05:07 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  15. #1915

    Default

    What's wrong with the graph that proves you wrong?
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  16. #1916

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    ^That whole thing is unnecessarily pedantic. When someone says "I believe in science", it's generally understood that it's meant as "I accept the findings that the scientific method has found". Even with a general consensus there's always going to be dissenting voices, so the fact that some (very few) scientists are skeptical of climate science doesn't make the statement "I believe in science" invalid.
    Maybe it's because I was raised as a conservative Christian but I am leery of phrases like "I believe the science" or "unite behind the science." Phrases like these put science on the same level as religious belief. Unlike religion, science is about establishing facts based on observation, measurement and experimentation. Science is about going where the evidence takes you even if this disproves pre-conceived biases or hypotheses.

    The evidence of human caused global warming is overwhelming. But that doesn't mean there is necessarily a scientific consensus about the rate of future warming or its impacts.
    Well said. Science should be all about discovery of facts and continued questioning of facts. Forecasts based on science are still forecasts and that forecasting effort should be seen as a reasonable thing to do but not as an absolutely correct forecast of the future. As such we should consider is as a probability not as an absolute.

  17. #1917
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    science is about establishing facts based on observation, measurement and experimentation.
    What "overwhelming" "observation, measurement, or experiment" do you have that the current warming was caused by man made CO2, and not just a natural variation?

    Surely not the hockey stick graph.
    You mean the hundreds of posts that show exactly that? What's the point of posting even more evidence you won't read, or will find some crap excuse as to why it's not valid.

  18. #1918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    science is about establishing facts based on observation, measurement and experimentation.
    What "overwhelming" "observation, measurement, or experiment" do you have that the current warming was caused by man made CO2, and not just a natural variation?

    Surely not the hockey stick graph.
    You mean the hundreds of posts that show exactly that? What's the point of posting even more evidence you won't read, or will find some crap excuse as to why it's not valid.
    You mean the hundreds of posts with Michael Mann's hockey stick graph that he wouldn't supply the data for in a court of law? How can anybody "measure" or "observe" what Michael Mann won't give us? Or the hundreds of posts that are based on untested, and/or failed software simulation predictions of the future? Is a software simulation a "measurement"? Is the output of a programmers program an "observation"?

    Yeah, you can throw all those in the shitcan. Got anything else?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 04-11-2019 at 04:57 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  19. #1919

    Default

    Anything the climate change believers side has is still more than the skeptics side who all they have is????


    nothing! Nothing that science will accept.

    It's just theories

    Theories that have been disproven.

    Theories that can't pass a litmus test

    Theories that smell like bulls hit

    MrCombust is junk science at best.

    MrCombust got so annoyed when his thread of misinformation got ignored, he's started now polluting other threads. (pun intended)
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  20. #1920

    Default

    C, if predictions/forecasts/simulations are no good at all because they can never be proven in advance, what do you suggest for an alternative?


    Or the hundreds of posts that are based on untested, and/or failed software simulation predictions of the future? Is a software simulation a "measurement"? Is the output of a programmers program an "observation"?

  21. #1921
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    I don't think I've ever seen any posts from him that is actual research that proves anything. It's always someones opinion, some blog, some "hole" in actual research, some "gotcha" moment, but nothing that actually proves anything. Ie proof that the climate is not changing.

  22. #1922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Anything the climate change believers side has is still more than the skeptics side who all they have is????


    nothing! Nothing that science will accept.

    It's just theories

    Theories that have been disproven.

    Theories that can't pass a litmus test

    Theories that smell like bulls hit

    MrCombust is junk science at best.

    MrCombust got so annoyed when his thread of misinformation got ignored, he's started now polluting other threads. (pun intended)
    No no no. You got it alĺ wrong. East Mcauley wanted "measurements" and "observations". Not me. Michael Mann won't show his data, so you can't see what he observed or measured. Software simulations don't give you measurements or observations.

    These are East Mcauley's crazy high standards, not mine.

    He says there's "overwhelming evidence" based on measurements and observations, but I don't know where he's getting his "measurements" or "observations" from, do you?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 04-11-2019 at 06:40 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  23. #1923

    Default

    On forecasts:


    You Can’t Forecast Accurately …. But

    Author: Don Creswell July 25, 2012
    Organizational Decisions 2


    I lifted the following story from Grant Williams’s articlefrom (John Mauldin’s “Outside the Box”) newsletter:

    During World War II, [Nobel laureate, Ken] Arrow was assigned to a team of statisticians to produce long-range weather forecasts. After a time, Arrow and his team determined that their forecasts were not much better than pulling predictions out of a hat. They wrote their superiors, asking to be relieved of the duty. They received the following reply, and I quote “The Commanding General is well aware that the forecasts are no good. However, he needs them for planning purposes.”
    In my white paper on Forecasting under Uncertainty, I made the point that there are no accurate forecasts about the future, whether made by banks, governments, businesses or other entities. Arrow’s quote would seem to apply to many business forecasts today.

    If you need forecasts for planning purposes, it is more useful to...”




    A real problem comes up if a group believes the “official” forecast is “wrong” (outside their assessed range). If decisions depend on which forecast is used, at least a real problem has been surfaced and identified for discussion and resolution.

    https://smartorg.com/you-can’t-forec...y-…-but/
    Last edited by KC; 04-11-2019 at 06:41 PM.

  24. #1924
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,595

    Default

    It's hilarious that he's still focused on Michael Mann. For those who don't know who that is, you can spend a few hours here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

    The reason that it's hilarious is that Mann's work itself is actually very well supported at this point (see above), but also because there are now literally dozens of other reconstructions based upon independent lines of evidence, and they all essentially show the same thing: the blade of a hockey stick curving near straight up at the far end of the graph. There was even a temperature reconstruction done by a bunch of skeptics, who then admitted that yup, it's getting hot in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

    This has all been raised with MrCompost repeatedly, and he either ignores it entirely or tries to change the subject.

  25. #1925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    It's hilarious that he's still focused on Michael Mann. For those who don't know who that is, you can spend a few hours here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

    The reason that it's hilarious is that Mann's work itself is actually very well supported at this point (see above), but also because there are now literally dozens of other reconstructions based upon independent lines of evidence, and they all essentially show the same thing: the blade of a hockey stick curving near straight up at the far end of the graph. There was even a temperature reconstruction done by a bunch of skeptics, who then admitted that yup, it's getting hot in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

    This has all been raised with MrCompost repeatedly, and he either ignores it entirely or tries to change the subject.
    Still stuck in the 1990's I see. Links to decades old climate arguments. While you ignore thousands of scientific articles describing the Medieval warm period. Most of them published over the last two decades.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  26. #1926
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    Well that's a new argument I guess. "That research got corrected decades ago, and haven't changed much since it was reconstructed and confirmed, so they must be wrong since it's old now".

  27. #1927
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,595

    Default

    BEST is two decades old? What about the other couple dozen temperature reconstructions mentioned? As far as the Medieval warm period goes, yes, it's well studied. It was a regional climatic event, not global: https://skepticalscience.com/medieva...termediate.htm

    The only one stuck in the 90's is you, because you keep saying over and over again that "the hockey stick graph" has been debunked. When over here in reality, the original statistical failings pointed out my McKitrick and McIntyre were corrected for and found to make almost no difference to the result. And once again, dozens of other temperature reconstructions are entirely consistent with a hockey stick shape.

    Here you go, get debunking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...st_2,000_years

  28. #1928
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    It's kind of interesting because I did take a look at some of the papers that "disprove" the hockey stick graph and honestly if you're not that scientifically literate, it does seem convincing. Until you actually look at the data and start seeing how cherry picked it is. Using only average december temperatures for one graph, one regions summer time average for another, you can make the data say whatever you want.

  29. #1929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Anything the climate change believers side has is still more than the skeptics side who all they have is????


    nothing! Nothing that science will accept.

    It's just theories

    Theories that have been disproven.

    Theories that can't pass a litmus test

    Theories that smell like bulls hit

    MrCombust is junk science at best.

    MrCombust got so annoyed when his thread of misinformation got ignored, he's started now polluting other threads. (pun intended)
    No no no. You got it alĺ wrong. East Mcauley wanted "measurements" and "observations". Not me. Michael Mann won't show his data, so you can't see what he observed or measured. Software simulations don't give you measurements or observations.

    These are East Mcauley's crazy high standards, not mine.

    He says there's "overwhelming evidence" based on measurements and observations, but I don't know where he's getting his "measurements" or "observations" from, do you?

    Still waiting for your peer reviewed studies that back your claims??? I've asked this repeatedly and you are yet to deliver. You keep knocking all the studies and proven facts - but don't have your own alternative/verified facts....

    Please step down for the soap box. We've heard enough from the likes of you.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  30. #1930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    BEST is two decades old? What about the other couple dozen temperature reconstructions mentioned? As far as the Medieval warm period goes, yes, it's well studied. It was a regional climatic event, not global: https://skepticalscience.com/medieva...termediate.htm

    The only one stuck in the 90's is you, because you keep saying over and over again that "the hockey stick graph" has been debunked. When over here in reality, the original statistical failings pointed out my McKitrick and McIntyre were corrected for and found to make almost no difference to the result. And once again, dozens of other temperature reconstructions are entirely consistent with a hockey stick shape.

    Here you go, get debunking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...st_2,000_years
    Actually, I find all the hockey stick graph reconstructions endlessly amusing. They all know what the worldwide temperature of the earth was 2,000 years ago to 1/10 of a degree using tree rings. Anybody who takes that seriously can't be taken seriously.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  31. #1931
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,595

    Default

    Thanks for confirming for the umpteenth time that your opinions have no backing in the scientific literature, and that if Watt's Up With That? doesn't have an article that you can just copy/paste from, you're totally lost.

  32. #1932

    Default

    [QUOTE=MrCombust;951479]
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    BEST is two decades old? What about the other couple dozen temperature reconstructions mentioned? As far as the Medieval warm period goes, yes, it's well studied. It was a regional climatic event, not global: https://skepticalscience.com/medieva...termediate.htm
    Let's look at the graph from your link............

    Sudden temperature variations from beginning to end. Is the spike at the end any different from the other spikes? Not really. If you go back further you'll see higher spikes as well. During the time camels roamed Edmonton. I've added that graph at the bottom.
    Your link proves there's nothing unusual about current warming. Neither the rate, nor the amount.
    Thanks for debunking global warming for me. I appreciate the help.

    But the most amusing thing is, this graph is from Michael Mann as well. I guess we can't have the data for this graph either. You should end your love affair with1990's science, Michael Mann, and skepticalscience.




    Going back further......... ice core record.............

    Last edited by MrCombust; 06-11-2019 at 01:26 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  33. #1933

    Default

    So what caused past spikes?
    Are those causes, behind the current spike?
    If one of those causes were to hit now, in conjunction with whatever is causing the current spike I’d guess that the spike would essentially go off the charts so to speak.

    Also, on some other thread I’ve posted research into pan-American droughts showing up in the historical record. I suspect that some of this research is a result of the current research into past climate as it relates to global warming.

    Any evidence of vast droughts in the past can’t likely accurately predict future occurances but the historical record points to the possibility. So in my mind, the threat of food supply destruction mass starvation in North America etc should be looked into and that possibly be in the backs of the minds of policy makers. It’s not science, it’s common sense.

    Consequently I’d say that research into past climate is adding to the body of knowledge and the result is unpredictable but odds are that more knowledge is potentially better than less knowledge.
    Last edited by KC; 06-11-2019 at 10:06 AM.

  34. #1934

    Default

    MrCombust, should we have any armed forces, defense capabilities, etc?

  35. #1935

    Default

    Motor Mouth: The hypocrisy of armchair environmentalism

    Climate change activists are always saying that we need to listen to scientists — perhaps it’s time they paid attention, too

    https://driving.ca/features/feature-...vironmentalism

  36. #1936
    Giving less of a damn than ever Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  37. #1937

    Default

    This Controversial Way to Combat Climate Change Might Be the Most Effective | Opinion

    “What's less frequently discussed, however, when it comes to personal contributions people can make, is also one of the most effective actions on the climate front: a smaller family size. A study by Lund University in Sweden shows that it has the highest impact, considerably outpacing all those previously mentioned personal actions to cut carbon. Thirty times more impactful, in fact. This carbon-cutting math is also supported by the groundbreaking work of the climate research organization Project Drawdown, which found that family planning is in the top 10 most effective solutions to climate change.“

    https://www.newsweek.com/this-contro...pinion-1468410

  38. #1938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoneman View Post
    Motor Mouth: The hypocrisy of armchair environmentalism

    Climate change activists are always saying that we need to listen to scientists — perhaps it’s time they paid attention, too

    https://driving.ca/features/feature-...vironmentalism
    I think global warming means different things to different people. For a lot of people "global warming" means "environmentalism". These people don't care about CO2 reduction. As far as I can tell the media and governments (who have their own versions of "global warming"), don't care about CO2 reductions either. For me it's all part of what makes actual global warming a scam.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  39. #1939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    This Controversial Way to Combat Climate Change Might Be the Most Effective | Opinion

    “What's less frequently discussed, however, when it comes to personal contributions people can make, is also one of the most effective actions on the climate front: a smaller family size. A study by Lund University in Sweden shows that it has the highest impact, considerably outpacing all those previously mentioned personal actions to cut carbon. Thirty times more impactful, in fact. This carbon-cutting math is also supported by the groundbreaking work of the climate research organization Project Drawdown, which found that family planning is in the top 10 most effective solutions to climate change.“

    https://www.newsweek.com/this-contro...pinion-1468410
    You mean just the fact that there's about 8 billion people on the planet now (and rising, exponentially)actually has something to do with climate change? I mean, who knew?
    Last edited by Stoneman; 11-11-2019 at 11:36 AM.

Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 101617181920

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
  •