Are you saying you don't believe that humankind is significantly changing the world's climate through toxic emissions?
Global warming hits Los Angeles
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
We already have a worldwide problem with illegal immigrations. Millions trying to flew poverty and/or violence to better countries. Can you just imagine how fuck it will be when some areas will get covered by water and/or unbearable due to temperature...
Exxon are climate alarmists as well, they did the same research and came up with the same answers.
Then they spent billions to hide it, spread disinformation and keep selling their products anyways.
Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say
In the study, scientists showed how the multinational energy giant worked to cloud the issue.
news.harvard.edu
Its like larue saying that people can't change the environment, ignoring how we listened to scientists and fixed acid rain and listened to scientists and fixed the ozone hole.
Are you saying you don't believe that humankind is significantly changing the world's climate through toxic emissions?
More than 20 years ago and that goes back to a few years before
Greta Thunberg was born there were already serious talks about
the imperative that it is time for the world to initiate the transition to
the post-fossil-fuel era. Some of the eminent scientists who expressed
such concern includes Yale Univ provost David Goodstein and Nobel
laureate Richard Smalley. Scientists are concerned it could be too
late if we didn't act sooner we might not be able to achieve the
scientific and technological breakthroughs needed to find ways to
produce sustainable, clean and affordable energy to maintain
current living standard for a growing global population before world's
remaining fossil fuel resources are run out. Since then
nano-material and electrochemistry among others have become
the the most active emerging fields of scientific research. Climate
change did play a role but only a minor one in driving scientists
towards that goal. Whatever the climate movement has accomplished
so far is not emission reduction but distracting people from the urgent
need of conservation of world's natural resources.
One doesn't have to accept climate change to be aware of
the many pressing issues the world is now facing. It is more
fruitful to educate people about the need to live a more environment-
-friendly lifestyle than the science of climate change.
More than 20 years ago and that goes back to a few years before
Greta Thunberg was born there were already serious talks about
the imperative that it is time for the world to initiate the transition to
the post-fossil-fuel era. Some of the eminent scientists who expressed
such concern includes Yale Univ provost David Goodstein and Nobel
laureate Richard Smalley. Scientists are concerned it could be too
late if we didn't act sooner we might not be able to achieve the
scientific and technological breakthroughs needed to find ways to
produce sustainable, clean and affordable energy to maintain
current living standard for a growing global population before world's
remaining fossil fuel resources are run out. Since then
nano-material and electrochemistry among others have become
the the most active emerging fields of scientific research. Climate
change did play a role but only a minor one in driving scientists
towards that goal. Whatever the climate movement has accomplished
so far is not emission reduction but distracting people from the urgent
need of conservation of world's natural resources.
One doesn't have to accept climate change to be aware of
the many pressing issues the world is now facing. It is more
fruitful to educate people about the need to live a more environment-
-friendly lifestyle than the science of climate change.
Last edited:
Again.
Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say
In the study, scientists showed how the multinational energy giant worked to cloud the issue.
news.harvard.edu
You didn't answer the question, but you did seem to just contradict yourself.
What do you actually believe and climate change?
Climate scientists first developed an algorithm to predict impact
of dumping carbon dioxide into the environment on climate. They
coded the algorithm and run simulation of global temperature
at different level of carbon emission. Predictions of higher temperature
were obtained from computer simulation with input of higher
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. That led scientists to conclude
that rising emission being the cause of climate change.
I worked with climate scientists nearby for quite a few years.
I accepted their results of climate modelling as they were
and continued to live life as usual just like them. Actually
I was more conscious of the need to reduce my carbon
footprint than most if not all of the climate scientists around
me. So I never thought much of the significance of the
acceptance of climate change as I believe action speaks
louder than words. Besides I never heard of any of them
warning people against impending climate crisis.
A lot of past tense stuff in there saying what scientists have done and studied.
My question is "what do you believe?"
Man, so many people here are worse than politicians at absent questions. You're anonymous. Your opinion can't come back to bite you. Why is it so hard to just give an answer?
Maybe you should first delineate a spectrum
of climate future scenarios predicted by climate
scientists to me before you go on asking what I believe.
The problem I have with coming up with my own view or
opinion regarding accuracy of climate scientists' prediction
of climate changes based on climate modelling results
is that I never ever figure out what they
actually predict other than climate is going to change due
to global emission. Here is the catch. Climate is going to change
even if carbon emission is reduced to zero immediately, so I was
told by an atmospheric science professor more than 2 decades
ago. I've also learned lately
that the 40 deg C heat that hit the UK last summer came as a
surprise to climate scientists. They had expected that such
extreme heat would not transpire before 2030 or 2040, I don't
remember exactly. The explanation of such unexpectedly extreme
climate seemed to be that climate changes could turn out to be
worse than what climate models predicted.
I can only base my assessment of accuracy of climate scientists'
climate models on agreement between predictions of future
climate and subsequent observation of weather/climate.
So far it seems to me that predictions of climate modelling
are rather vague to say the least. Climate scientists must
be right if climate is worsening. And they still must be
right if climate changes are turning out to be milder
than expected.
There was a study published around 2003 which predicted
melting of polar ice in one (or 2?) centuries by computer
simulation. I would like to consider reliability of
such study if only I could compare simulation results with
observation of polar ice melting in the 2 decades elapsed.
But I can't find any such comparison reported to validate
the computer model employed for that prediction. And
to the best of my knowledge no climate modelling study
reported during the decades from early 1990s through 2010
have been shown to predict changes in climate
observed in the following decade to any precision. I
suspect those studies were somehow validated by
their prediction of a rising global temperature
which is just an arbitrary quantity. It will be more difficult
to create a model that predicts a global temperature going
down while emission is going up.
Due to my limitation I can only say that debating
climate science prediction is a thankless exercise.
It is more fruitful to focus on our energy future. Sooner
or later the world will have to worry more about finding
sufficient fuel they need to burn to survive than reducing
carbon emission.
of climate future scenarios predicted by climate
scientists to me before you go on asking what I believe.
The problem I have with coming up with my own view or
opinion regarding accuracy of climate scientists' prediction
of climate changes based on climate modelling results
is that I never ever figure out what they
actually predict other than climate is going to change due
to global emission. Here is the catch. Climate is going to change
even if carbon emission is reduced to zero immediately, so I was
told by an atmospheric science professor more than 2 decades
ago. I've also learned lately
that the 40 deg C heat that hit the UK last summer came as a
surprise to climate scientists. They had expected that such
extreme heat would not transpire before 2030 or 2040, I don't
remember exactly. The explanation of such unexpectedly extreme
climate seemed to be that climate changes could turn out to be
worse than what climate models predicted.
I can only base my assessment of accuracy of climate scientists'
climate models on agreement between predictions of future
climate and subsequent observation of weather/climate.
So far it seems to me that predictions of climate modelling
are rather vague to say the least. Climate scientists must
be right if climate is worsening. And they still must be
right if climate changes are turning out to be milder
than expected.
There was a study published around 2003 which predicted
melting of polar ice in one (or 2?) centuries by computer
simulation. I would like to consider reliability of
such study if only I could compare simulation results with
observation of polar ice melting in the 2 decades elapsed.
But I can't find any such comparison reported to validate
the computer model employed for that prediction. And
to the best of my knowledge no climate modelling study
reported during the decades from early 1990s through 2010
have been shown to predict changes in climate
observed in the following decade to any precision. I
suspect those studies were somehow validated by
their prediction of a rising global temperature
which is just an arbitrary quantity. It will be more difficult
to create a model that predicts a global temperature going
down while emission is going up.
Due to my limitation I can only say that debating
climate science prediction is a thankless exercise.
It is more fruitful to focus on our energy future. Sooner
or later the world will have to worry more about finding
sufficient fuel they need to burn to survive than reducing
carbon emission.
who told you CO2 is toxic ? , it is plant food
Every time you exhale you are releasing a lot of toxicity according to you
co2 concentration in exhaled breath ppm - Google Search
co2 averages about 420 ppm in the atmosphere
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - MN Dept. of Health (state.mn.us)
So you can stop wetting your pants
the net change since the industrial revolution is 0.01% of atmospheric composition and Infrared absorption is a physical effect , not a chemical effect (no chemical bonds are formed or broken)
small composition changes which have only physical effects do not have any significant impacts on systems, let alone our very complex, dynamic and chaotic climate system
so
No we are not significantly changing the world's climate
Co2 is not the control knob for climate
please learn about a subject before allowing the media to form your opinion for you
toxic is one of the most abused words used by uninformed people wishing to mislead others
water can be toxic if you consume too much
How Much Water Can Kill You? Water Intoxication Symptoms & Causes (healthline.com)
Symptoms of water intoxication tend to start appearing after you consume more than 3 to 4 L of water in a few hours.
Last edited:
This has to be the Dunning Kruger winning post of the year.
To make such an incredibly false claim about CO2 and then to accuse others of not knowing what they are talking about is quite spectacular.
If you can't understand the greenhouse effect and how greenhouse gases work on the climate you really should not be in this conversation.
do not confuse economic / political refugees with climate change propaganda refugees
Saudi Arabia , one of the driest warmest countries in the world continually has a net immigration
just to the north Syria is a economic and political shithole & people want to leave
similarly Costa Rica has net immigration , while just to the north the ass backwards regimes of Nicaragua have a net emigration
you can stop wetting your pants
We have not yet seen mass climate refugees dude. It will happen in the future. How many year? 15, 25?
scary predictions about the future have been happen since right after humans started communicating with one another. ......dude
or it will not
And you started this thread to pathetically try to deny that fact.
You wine that it is fake news about the ice caps disappearing but when confronted with actual facts showing that is clearly the trend, you run away.
Yes. the science clearly shows that. The only actual scientific debate is how premature and whether we have the ability to reverse the trend.
Acid rain - we changed the climate, scientists offered solutions, we did it and fixed issue.
Ozone hole - same
