Challenge to Democrats/Leftists: If you believe climate change is an existential crisis, prove it

Of course his views weren't well received by the TDS Trump haters. Anything that goes against the DNC and CNN narrative is simply dismissed by the koolaid drinkers. Same was said about Dershowitz.

Sure, sure, whatever CNN says.
I guess you missed how dishonest the Dems witnesses were, look no further than Sondland having to admit there was no quid pro quo.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right.

 

It’s always funny to read these threads.

“Waaaaa!” they cry. The climate isn’t warming as fast as some models predicted - therefore it’s all a hoax!”

They’ve given up trying to argue that it isn’t happening, now they’ve switched to it isn’t happening fast enough.

 

Poor thing! I've got you so rattled you don't even know what this topic is about. But at least you squeezed in a “Waaaaa!" for your side, since climate alarmists demand sound effects rather than sound reason.

Pro tip: For future reference, when you want to reply to someone, click the Reply button. Unless you just want to scream helplessly at the sky.

 

Have you checked sea levels compared to 300yrs ago, nothing to do with humans doing their utmost to destroy our plant, industrial revolution, zillions of fat burping cows, rain forest destruction, etc etc, the list of human catastrophic impact on our planet is obvious to me and l am a idiot. I have no scientific qualifications, but at 73yrs of age l have a pair of eyes, a pair of ears, a nose and to top it all l can read. But what do I know.

 

Except that you continue to ignore the fact that the majority of science is on our side. Minor inconvenient fact.

 

Perhaps not sucking all the ground water out might stop the sublimation... but who cares... it's easier to blame the nature than the folly of man...

 

Not really, humans only produce 3-4% of the Earth's CO2...

 

Can you verify that information from a non partisan source?

 

Look to the sourcing this site uses, the EPA. That's definitely not the original site I got the information from, but searches these days tend to focus only on human contributions and very little on the natural cycles...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07...bon-dioxide-is-attributable-to-human-sources/

 

What the hell do you mean "prove it" Didn't Barack Obama tell us that the science is settled. If you can't believe the Messiah then who can you believe?

 

The thing that is missing is that CO2 was pretty much in balance, with as much being removed as being added. So the increase of 3-4% accumulates.

 

Except for the fact we know there were higher levels before humans existed. Saying we are difference now doesn't explain the multiple differences of the past. Without that knowledge we are really speculating on this, which could prove disastrous. Instead of a silly blame game we should be focusing our attention towards adaptation...

 

Both prosecutors and defense attys alike will affirm that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Albert Einstein:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Look at one, osteoporosis of the oceans. Lubchenko's experimental methodology proved that crustaceans' shells will disintegrate within 45 days. Never mind that she was adding acids and bases directly to the water in order to maintain the pH. Physicist Willie Soon said, yo, wonder what would happen if we followed a more naturally occuring methodology?
@ mark 20:20


If you still have questions, I suggest you grow a cynical pair...green still means green just like it's always meant green:



Ouch!

 

Facts, funny things.

97% of scientist believe in AGW.
Where'd that number come from?
Prof. John Cook of U of Queensland. He did a paper for an obscure journal in which he read the abstracts of 11000 scientific articles. What did he find? 66.4% had No Position on man-made global warming, 32.4% believed in AGW. Conclusion: 97% of 1/3 of scientists agree on agw. Greenpeace website/msm news reports: 97% of ALL scientists believe in AGW.
my contribution

The last IPCC report, 1300 pages.
Chapter 9, methodologies,
170+ times the term inconsistent/inconsistencies was used, 180+ times the word error was used...in 200+ pages.

Sorry, will have to dig up the link on that one again.

 

OMFG! You did not just say that!!!
What does it matter??

https://images.app.goo.gl/aRNaQRHmNKn2Li2B8

gee I just can't imagine how a desal plant and a ******n tractor might help this girl!!

Smoke from cooking in the kitchen is one of the world’s leading causes of premature child death, claiming the lives of 500,000 children under five annually....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5489158/

Of course his Nordic ass has a solution to their problem, take the dung and go outside to cook!! a friend of yours, Dan?

How dare people sitting in a warm house with a flushing toilet and a stove to cook on and heat and cooling and a hospital and a grocery store down the street and a refrigerator in the kitchen to put your food in so that it doesn't get maggots in it, of all the unmitigated gall! To tell whole continents of people that they cannot use their own resources! How just explain how do you intend to run a hospital with a half-dozen solar panels? and how will you get the minerals to build those solar panels if you don't have the energy resources for the mining? How will you build those panels if you have no energy
for factories?!

The nerve! of a bunch of first world handwringers who live so fat that they create problems that others are forced to live with.

IS THIS WHERE I INSERT THE RACE CARD?

 

Isn’t it you that wants to live in the past and have a fear of the future?

 

Driessen is a geologist and attorney who has had a long career in environmental issues. His exploits both within and without the Beltway have made him the bane of the Envirocult. In 2004 he published the book "Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death," a meticulously documented exposé on the worldwide green movement.

The central theme of "Eco-Imperialism" is that wealthy, comfortable activists from the Western countries have been fighting to strangle industrial development across the planet. In the West, it has been a terrible irritant, but in the Third World, and particularly Africa, it has been nothing less than a catastrophe. Driessen estimates that the annual death toll resulting from radical environmental advocacy is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million people.

One major cause of the carnage has been the crusade to prevent the use of DDT, the most effective and affordable agent known for combatting malaria. Deaths from this disease, which infects hundreds of millions of people, have been

"due in large part to near-global restrictions on the production, export and use of DDT. Originally imposed in the United States by EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus in 1972, the DDT prohibitions have been expanded and enforced by NGO pressure, coercive treaties, and threats of economic sanctions by foundations, nations and international aid agencies."

Another source of green mayhem has been the campaign to stop the use of genetically modified crops. The Envirocult has been tireless in its efforts to sabotage these promising new sources of food, thereby frustrating the hopes of the developing countries. Driessen reminds us of the famine in southern Africa in 2002, when the U.S. shipped 26,000 tons of corn to Zambia. Caving in to Envirocult pressure, especially from Europe, the country's government refused to accept the corn--because some of it was genetically modified.

Dreissen quotes an editorial in the Wall Street Journal of that time (9/17/2002):

"The eco-lobby has targeted the Third World with a five-year, $175 million campaign against GM [genetically modified] foods. The Sierra Club is calling 'for a moratorium on the planting of all genetically engineered crops.' Greenpeace says it 'opposes all releases of genetically engineered organisms into the environment,' an act it calls 'genetic pollution'."

Quips Driessen:

"$175 million would feed millions of starving people for months. So would the $500 million the protest industry spent between 1996 and 2001 to attack biotechnology. But of course, amply nourished Greenpeace zealots are not spending a dime on food aid. They merely want to scare Africans half to death, if they don't starve to death first."

"Eco-Imperialism" also thoroughly debunks the other shameful chimeras of the $8 billion/year green propaganda mill: sustainability, climate change, renewable energy, socially responsible investing, and other campaigns that stifle the improvement of the human condition. It is a shocking story; one needs a strong stomach to read this book.

 

I'm not sure which ones in the past you are talking about. If it's the biggies where we got closer to the sun your right. Not much we can do about that.
Adaption is also very expensive and some things simply can't adapt.
But at least your thinking about it.

 

No. I'm a problem solver. I take them head on.

FIRST RULE of PROBLEM SOLVING

Admit you have a problem.

 

The ever increasing annual high temperature records being broken repeatedly year after year for the past several decades is proof. The ever increasing rate for the melting of the polar ice caps, both north & south, is proof. The ever increasing rate of species extinction for non-human animals across the globe, on land & in the oceans, is proof. But Climate Deniers will never see it, because they care more about winning an indefensible argument than they care about saving a wondrous planet & the life forms on it.

 

Ok. So you are looking forward to leveraging climate change, not trying to stop it?

 

It would seem both would be the best course.

 

The term existential has been a bit overused lately. The rich will survive anything. But how anyone can argue that the seas are not rising and ice caps and glaciers melting, and the atmosphere is not warming has not really been paying attention attention.

 

Or man has no influence on the climate or I will be dead by the time it becomes serious so who cares.

 

And that couldn’t possibly have any influence on climate?