markngolf wrote:
Frequently I see the terms, many intended to be pejorative, "demo, Lib, Conservative, Republican, Basement Dweller, ...
My objection is that they are just terms, not descriptive. Wouldn't it be better and less inflammatory to simply state what one believes - leaving out the generalized pejorative terms. If you want to know what I (politically) believe or what my opinion is, just ask. Using names, throwing slurs at me or even worse, attempts to put me in a category is inaccurate and only creates dissension. We seem to have enough dissention and name calling in society. Let's take the high road. Just my opinion.
Mark
Frequently I see the terms, many intended to be pe... (
show quote)
And I can live with that too.
Mark - I concur and will act accordingly in the future.
Man being the cause is debatable but evidence is stacking up to it being more evident. The argument that climate change has happened in the past is true but what is alarming is the speed of the present change. The destruction of the rain forest has never happened previously and we are destroying the lungs of the planet.
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
rwoodvira wrote:
Thought I'd stir the pot one more time. I certainly respect your opinions, but according to NASA 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists agree that "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities......"
Citation:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/It shows a list of groups that support this conclusion within the US and the article forwards to worldwide organizations. Many go into more detail. I kinda go with them over our Fearless Leader (PS I primarily vote Republican).
The problem isn't just creating greenhouse gases - the amount of forests is shrinking rapidly, the Amazon basin, etc.
On the Berkley comment - nope didn't go there, but when I attended two different campuses of Rutgers back in the late 60's and early 70's we were called "Berkeley East." I am very conservative on some issues and liberal on others - notably healthcare as I'm a cancer counselor and have seen how the average Joe gets ripped off by the system. Oh, back on the Berkley issue, conservatives will be happy to know that I almost got into a fistfight with an SDS member in one of my classes. He strongly objected to me calling him a parasite.
Thought I'd stir the pot one more time. I certainl... (
show quote)
You should look into the 97% consensus ... it just ain’t so.
rwoodvira wrote:
There's a fairly good, but brief article in Time on the current warming trend:
https://time.com/5630009/heatwave-climate-crisis-june-record/I have health issues and for the last few days, I've made my trips outside as infrequent as possible. For the last few years, I've had some
tough conversations with very conservative friends about global warming. Several have insisted that its BS, but I tend to read the scientific reports. We currently have an administration that doesn't believe it, but the evidence is pretty much damning. This article
only hits a few points. My concern is for my children and grandchildren. How will they live when the current heatwave becomes the norm and not an aberration?
There's a fairly good, but brief article in Time o... (
show quote)
Here's in Aus, we have hot days, every summer, over 40, & up to 45 degrees C. We're guaranteed of 8 -10 days, with most of the rest of summer between 30 & 40 C.
Not comfortable but we don't let it hold up life's progress. We get used to it.
rwoodvira wrote:
There's a fairly good, but brief article in Time on the current warming trend:
https://time.com/5630009/heatwave-climate-crisis-june-record/I have health issues and for the last few days, I've made my trips outside as infrequent as possible. For the last few years, I've had some
tough conversations with very conservative friends about global warming. Several have insisted that its BS, but I tend to read the scientific reports. We currently have an administration that doesn't believe it, but the evidence is pretty much damning. This article
only hits a few points. My concern is for my children and grandchildren. How will they live when the current heatwave becomes the norm and not an aberration?
There's a fairly good, but brief article in Time o... (
show quote)
Scientists only have a tiny slice of information that was gathered and interpreted based on what they think may have happened in the past. One example is the carbon dating process that they use to estimate the age of an object. It is based on what they assume carbon does over centuries of years though it has been studied for less than 100 years. They assume what happened to the climates centuries ago based on the short periods of study which started just over 100 years when temperatures started to be recorded in certain areas. In a short summary, scientists don't know a small fraction about what happened in the worlds past. There is a whole lot of theory baked in to what they claim is 'scientific evidence'.
rwoodvira wrote:
Thought I'd stir the pot one more time. I certainly respect your opinions, but according to NASA 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists agree that "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities......"
Citation:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/It shows a list of groups that support this conclusion within the US and the article forwards to worldwide organizations. Many go into more detail. I kinda go with them over our Fearless Leader (PS I primarily vote Republican).
The problem isn't just creating greenhouse gases - the amount of forests is shrinking rapidly, the Amazon basin, etc.
On the Berkley comment - nope didn't go there, but when I attended two different campuses of Rutgers back in the late 60's and early 70's we were called "Berkeley East." I am very conservative on some issues and liberal on others - notably healthcare as I'm a cancer counselor and have seen how the average Joe gets ripped off by the system. Oh, back on the Berkley issue, conservatives will be happy to know that I almost got into a fistfight with an SDS member in one of my classes. He strongly objected to me calling him a parasite.
Thought I'd stir the pot one more time. I certainl... (
show quote)
The warming trend has been going on for about 20,000 years, with the main increase happening between 20K and 10K years ago. 100 years is not a trend, it is however a way for scientists to claim a problem so that they can justify more asking for more money for more studies.
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_50k_yrs.html
rwoodvira wrote:
There's a fairly good, but brief article in Time on the current warming trend:
https://time.com/5630009/heatwave-climate-crisis-june-record/I have health issues and for the last few days, I've made my trips outside as infrequent as possible. For the last few years, I've had some
tough conversations with very conservative friends about global warming. Several have insisted that its BS, but I tend to read the scientific reports. We currently have an administration that doesn't believe it, but the evidence is pretty much damning. This article
only hits a few points. My concern is for my children and grandchildren. How will they live when the current heatwave becomes the norm and not an aberration?
There's a fairly good, but brief article in Time o... (
show quote)
I'm on board with addressing the scientific data with both debate and planning, and a LOT of that work has been done by folks with WAY more date and WAY more training than either you or I.
My biggest concern on this front is not the temperatures. It's the imminent threat of an uninformed, overreaction that winds up crippling the global economy, or at least the US economy. One need only listen to 10 minutes of either of the Democrat debates to hear promise upon policy upon plan... all of which are 100% guaranteed to increase national debt, increase taxation, decrease private ownership of business and of the profit motive and to stagnate the economy. Once the economy tanks, the need for social welfare will skyrocket, further increasing government's reach and size, and further increasing debt and taxation, and further reducing the free market and private business / home ownership.
All of that will occur without addressing the climate, and the left have even bigger and worse plans for that. Given a chance to enact all the idiocy like 15 min wage, free college, nationalized medicine (for illegals too), guranteed income, and all the rest, the US will be uninhabitable and in a perpetual cycle of warlord faction battles long before it's too hot to grow concord grapes in SoCo.
Cykdelic
Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM
rwoodvira wrote:
There's a fairly good, but brief article in Time on the current warming trend:
https://time.com/5630009/heatwave-climate-crisis-june-record/I have health issues and for the last few days, I've made my trips outside as infrequent as possible. For the last few years, I've had some
tough conversations with very conservative friends about global warming. Several have insisted that its BS, but I tend to read the scientific reports. We currently have an administration that doesn't believe it, but the evidence is pretty much damning. This article
only hits a few points. My concern is for my children and grandchildren. How will they live when the current heatwave becomes the norm and not an aberration?
There's a fairly good, but brief article in Time o... (
show quote)
Funny.....I’ve yet to hear a conservative of any ilk say the weather isn’t changing. However, I’ve heard many if not most say there isn’t scientific proof that humans are the direct and major cause of it, which is true if you really do read the science.
That is actually the debate, followed closely by exactly what can man do to slow it if it’s true,
Cykdelic
Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM
rwoodvira wrote:
Thought I'd stir the pot one more time. I certainly respect your opinions, but according to NASA 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists agree that "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities......"
Citation:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/It shows a list of groups that support this conclusion within the US and the article forwards to worldwide organizations. Many go into more detail. I kinda go with them over our Fearless Leader (PS I primarily vote Republican).
The problem isn't just creating greenhouse gases - the amount of forests is shrinking rapidly, the Amazon basin, etc.
On the Berkley comment - nope didn't go there, but when I attended two different campuses of Rutgers back in the late 60's and early 70's we were called "Berkeley East." I am very conservative on some issues and liberal on others - notably healthcare as I'm a cancer counselor and have seen how the average Joe gets ripped off by the system. Oh, back on the Berkley issue, conservatives will be happy to know that I almost got into a fistfight with an SDS member in one of my classes. He strongly objected to me calling him a parasite.
Thought I'd stir the pot one more time. I certainl... (
show quote)
Speaking of NASA.....
25 NASA scientists disagree....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EhW-B2udhQwHere's the 500 million year GEOCARB CO2 graph. Time 0 is today at 380ppm. It's the lowest point on the graph all the way to the left. The 1st smaller peak is the dinosaur era at 1000-2200ppm. And the large peak is the Cambrian explosion which was the most prolific creation event for animals in history at greater than 7000ppm. Al Gore and the fake scientists want you to believe that CO2 going from 350ppm to 380ppm over 180 years is life threatening. They should study this graph. Because the most prolific times ever for animal and plant life were during periods where CO2 was dramatically higher than today. It's b/c plants need CO2 for food. And the more plants grow, the more animals grow. That is the evidence. It's pretty simple.
We can stop chopping the lungs of the world down that would be a good start. Save the rainforest
Cykdelic
Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM
rwoodvira wrote:
Thought I'd stir the pot one more time. I certainly respect your opinions, but according to NASA 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists agree that "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities......"
Citation:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/It shows a list of groups that support this conclusion within the US and the article forwards to worldwide organizations. Many go into more detail. I kinda go with them over our Fearless Leader (PS I primarily vote Republican).
The problem isn't just creating greenhouse gases - the amount of forests is shrinking rapidly, the Amazon basin, etc.
On the Berkley comment - nope didn't go there, but when I attended two different campuses of Rutgers back in the late 60's and early 70's we were called "Berkeley East." I am very conservative on some issues and liberal on others - notably healthcare as I'm a cancer counselor and have seen how the average Joe gets ripped off by the system. Oh, back on the Berkley issue, conservatives will be happy to know that I almost got into a fistfight with an SDS member in one of my classes. He strongly objected to me calling him a parasite.
Thought I'd stir the pot one more time. I certainl... (
show quote)
I will note that one should always investigate the “97% consensus” canard before reusing it.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
