More Americans and most Republicans now believe in climate change

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Nov 30, 2018.

  1. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    3,963
    Likes Received:
    1,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fortunately a 300' rise is not something we need to worry about. The IPCC consensus is for a 3' or less rise by 2100. It would likely take 1000 years and 2000 ppm of CO2 to cause a 300' rise.
     
  2. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    11,778
    Likes Received:
    4,660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The climate is changing. Give me a $100,000 grant, I'll put it in writing, and throw in some statistics for free.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018 at 12:13 PM
    jay runner and Polydectes like this.
  3. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    3,963
    Likes Received:
    1,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IPCC AR5. It is the culmination of 30,000 lines of evidence reviewed by 3,500 experts to produce a 5,000 page summary.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

    This report summarizes the consensus model of climate science as it relates to climate change today.
     
  4. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    29,377
    Likes Received:
    3,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is not a comprehensive model that includes ALL factors that effect climate, try again...
     
  5. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    3,963
    Likes Received:
    1,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just because climate changed without our modulating effect in the past does not preclude humans from having a modulating effect today.

    A CO2 molecule emitted by man will have EXACTLY the same warming effect as a molecule emitted by nature in the past. The laws of physics don't really care how those molecules got into the atmosphere.

    And remember, "nature" or "man" are not causes. They are just categories under which we classify who/what provided the modulating influence on the underlying physical process.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  6. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    3,963
    Likes Received:
    1,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, actually the IPCC does consider ALL factors that effect the climate. You should read the report. I realize 5,000 pages is rather lengthy, but there's a lot of stuff to go over. But, at least it's better than reading the millions of pages of evidence contained in the academic journals.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  7. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,608
    Likes Received:
    3,197
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the stupid part of it is who said it wasn't changing? I don't even doubt that man plays a role in it. I just don't buy into the imminent catastrophe or Doomsday theory nor do I think the only way to combat this is by using the government.
     
  8. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,659
    Likes Received:
    921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think Trump's support for the fossil fuels industry, plus his determined effort to remove all controls on fossil fuel usage, plus his single-minded refusal to participate in ANY programs to alleviate the growing CO2 levels in our atmosphere, all argue against the validity of your post.
     
  9. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,659
    Likes Received:
    921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sadly, there's a lot of truth in your post. I suspect you've hit on a major reason so many Americans voted for Trump in 2016. This tunnel vision that always asks, "What's in it for me," or "How will this affect me," is more powerful & widespread than we who think more globally would like to admit or accept. I find your post sadly accurate. :(
     
    TurnerAshby likes this.
  10. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,659
    Likes Received:
    921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was talking global warming, not economics.
     
  11. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,659
    Likes Received:
    921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Breaking into a super sensitive bank vault would be easier than breaking into a closed mind. :(:(
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  12. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    6,722
    Likes Received:
    3,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody votes without asking "What's in it for me?" That's why people vote -- for themselves -- by either wanting money or benefits for themselves (taxpayers or welfare recipients) -- or for their own say in the direction of the country and policies which affect that. But everybody votes for their own selfish reasons, hoping to get their way or get thrown a little more off the float.

    I voted for secure borders, against socialism, for less taxes, for heavy industry, and for jobs.

    That's the way I like it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018 at 1:25 PM
  13. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    24,574
    Likes Received:
    5,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is NOTHING... NOTHING Kyoto or Paris or any other accord or agreement we have considered will do, except take money from Americans and place it in the hands of globalists, which is the entire goal.

    If you do not support the #1 baseload carbon free emissions source MODERN NUCLEAR POWER... just shut the **** up about Climate Change, because you are only talking out of your ass with no viable solutions. In short, you are an ignorant idiot trying to persuade others with total nonsense.

    As far as impact, let's just say we warm to the point of Roman times, meh.... whatever... it's not worth destroying economies.
     
    jay runner likes this.
  14. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,659
    Likes Received:
    921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Up until the 20th century, mankind was not regarded as force for change powerful enough to change the face of the Earth as a planet. Today, we know otherwise. Some geologists, in recognition of mankind's growing impacts, have come to calling our present geologic age, the "Anthropocene." Man's canals, roads, urban housing, towns & cities have reshaped the surface of a large portion of the Earth, and the impacts from that construction & human activity is as dramatic and powerful as the forces of nature over time. From a theoretical perspective, the professor at University of Texas has a point. Eliminating 90% of humanity would go far in preserving the natural environments of Earth itself. If you see the Earth as a living organism, then humans are very much like bacteria swarming it's surface & doing things daily that impact the overall health of Earth as a living planet. That is within the definition of "pathogens."
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  15. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,659
    Likes Received:
    921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tell that to those between the coast & Houston area who lost their homes. Yes, there have always been hurricanes, but the thing that's different now, is the number of hurricanes, the expanding length of hurricane season, and the intensity of the individual storms--all of which are expanding yearly. That's NOT nature in its "normal" state.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  16. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    6,722
    Likes Received:
    3,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Great Hurricane of 1900, a cat 4, only killed 12,000 in Galveston. Of course there wasn't much development and not much population then.

    Every morning on GMA Ginger rants about a new storm with millions in its path. Every damn day.

    Severe weather ain't anything new. The message is a false message. Cry wolf.
     
  17. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    81,108
    Likes Received:
    7,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ya got nuthin do ya?
     
  18. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    18,431
    Likes Received:
    11,594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can you think of any reasons why the climate was different 60 million years ago?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  19. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    18,431
    Likes Received:
    11,594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to this survey, roughly 36% of Republicans don't accept that the climate is changing.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  20. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,659
    Likes Received:
    921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I vote for very different reasons, but I appreciate your post. It clarifies a lot for me. :)
     

Share This Page