U.S. Can Do NOTHING For Climate Change - John Kerry

Yes. AND, Yikes!! We have only one "Earth's atmosphere".

Letting it go that far would prove humans are just plain stupid.

 

Yeah it's so important that their pollution keeps going up instead of the other way.

 

Well, he's talking to the UN, they can impose regulation.

 

No, the UN has no authority over sovereign nations, and that fact is reflected in direct admission in their own charter.

 

We could use all those billions provided for the hoaxsters to actually adapt to whatever nature throws at us. Nature will try to kill us sooner or later, all we can do is prepare and adapt, as its always been. We have never been in a situation to take control, its simply not possible...

 

The UN can organize approaches to problems through cooperative efforts of member states.

That can include formations of specialized organizations. For example, the UN has an environmental branch that includes the IPCC.

 

How would you know what nature is "throwing at us" if we decided not to apply science anymore?

Let's remember that the right wing has argued that the planet isn't warming for three decades. Claiming we already knew enough to figure out how to handle warming seems a little silly when a majority of our leadership has been confident that no such problem even exists!

 

I'm talking about the CO2 AGW hoax, I've never once demeaned or denounced any legitimate science or area of study. Personally I think we need to shift a significant amount of funding to study the shifting magnetic pole in the north, its already causing air traffic problems that will only grow worse, but nobody is really looking to see what else it effects. Seeing there is no climate without the sun and magnetosphere, when we see something shift in one of those, we need to start paying close attention...

 

You were talking about climate change, suggesting we don't need that science.

Now, you want to switch subjects.

As to your NEW red herring:
- we study the sun a LOT. It's a significant issue in understanding climate cycles. One recent event was sending the Parker Solar Probe which will reach the Sun's outer atmosphere in about 6 years from now.
- we also study our magnetosphere a LOT - and for several individual reasons. We need to understand radiation protection if we ever decide to send humans beyond our magnetosphere (like the moon or mars) - it's illegal for us to radiate astronauts to death. And, it's a serious issue for the space station we have. And, it has other implications.

 

What you say is a LOT, could certainly be more. Climate change is not a human endeavor, we cannot control it, nor is our participation relevant. What else do you need from me?

Lets get straight to brass tacks on this. Everything we think we know about non-terrestrial or of global scope is basically in the infant stage of understanding. Prior to the last 50-60 years we lacked the technology and communications to work on anything of note. Everything prior to that is incomparable and incompatible. We have collected reams of junk data, but that's all it is. What is amazing is the AGW crowd think we should be rubes enough to take their word on this CO2 boogey man and fundamentally change every successful nation's economy into a socialist nightmare, and anyone who doesn't agree is a DENIER. If you think that's the side of the angels, oh wait, most of your side are Godless commies, sorry...

 

What I would ask from you is to have some respect for science.

You're making a claim that scientists working on this problem roundly reject.

I see absolutely NO evidence of your claim.

I would certainly reject your insinuations of this issue being connected to politics or religion.

Our climate has been studied by experts from an amazingly wide range of disciplines ranging from space to our seas. Having you come along and suggesting they don't know what they're talking about is ridiculous.

Or, are you one of those projecting a massive and comprehensive world wide conspiracy?

 

I'm not going to respect a hoax, sorry.

What are scientists rejecting? That we control the climate? We don't.

Of course the issue is connected to politics, most of the 'research' is paid for by the tax payers, because no private corporations or citizens will use their own money to fund a hoax. If you dare to say politics plays no part then just sign off now, nothing you said after that would matter...

 

So, you don't even know what scientists are saying!! Here's one hint: They don't say we control the climate!

Most fundamental research is funded by the government. Corporations rarely invest in fundamental research because it's not usually clear that it would lead to a near term profit.

If you want to claim there is a conspiracy, you have some VERY serious work to do. Science is world wide. And, climatology involves independent research in an exceptionally broad range of disciplines. You would need to explain how all involved disciplines could manage to give results that support a single view before science even knows how the disciplines fit together. Good luck!

Plus, science rewards those who show new and useful theory, not those who do work that confirms existing theory. We know about Einstein, because he blew away so much physics. Einstein made a lot of money in copyright fees and other stuff based on who he was - not from any government that funded research.

 

Problems with Carl Cantrell Theory:
1. It has nothing to do with the Big Lie that humans are warming the globe. Nothing.
2. The deserts don't create heat. Mister Sun does. Hello!
3. Nothing Americans do will change a thing. NOTHING.
Other than that...….

 

Everybody talks about how "fragile" this ecosystem and that ecosystem is. If they're ALL so very fragile, what are they all degrading to that is so robust? Please tell everyone. The deserts are fragile and hot. The arctic is fragile and freezing. The forests are fragile and thick. And women can become men and vice versa. Riiiiight.

 

One would have to determine what someone meant by "fragile" in a specific case. And, I don't know what you mean by "what are they all degrading to that is so robust". There is no reason to believe that degrading leads to something robust.

In the case of the tundra to our north, thawing means that stupendous amounts of material becomes available for biodegrading such that truly massive amounts of methane is emitted. Methane is far far worse as a greenhouse gas than is CO2.

Arctic thawing changes the rate at which solar energy is captured. Dark oceans gather more heat than frozen oceans, for example. So, thawing the arctic absolutely does contribute to warming. This could be thought of as fragile in that frozen arctic oceans are not staying frozen.

Etc.

 

I know what the hucksters are NOT saying, and that is far more telling. 96% of all CO2 produced annually is completely natural, the human factor is irrelevant, and we know from billions of years of climate history that the Earth has had much higher levels and it remained for millions of years. Even those numbers are nothing but estimates premised on what humans are doing, not actually measuring every contributor separately, so a natural increase would just be attributed to humans because the methodology is shoddy. Blaming humanity for increasing CO2 levels is sheer arrogance and nothing more than a sleazy socialist wealth redistribution scam.

There is no conspiracy, its all out in the open. Anyone who doesn't accept the hoax is labeled DENIER, the only place for deniers to go is the private sector. Research in the private sector will is not taken seriously by the hoaxsters, regardless of how accurate it is...

 

Go away. It is so sickening to read nonsense like this.

 

No thanks, go whine to someone else...

 

It is believed that by planting a trillion trees, CO2 levels can be moderated until green technologies can replace petro fuels.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...nge-plant-trillion-trees-190704193054113.html

Is that okay with you deniers or do you hate trees too?

 

How many trillions of dollars would that cost? Solutions aren't really solutions if they aren't in any way realistic...

 

"Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm"

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...issions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/#ixzz5v1N72dOI

Scientists do not ignore changes in natural production of CO2.

Previous to the industrial age, heat drove CO2 concentration. Post industrial age CO2 concentrations are what is driving heat. This is a highly serious change, obviously.

Earth is sensitive to relatively small changes. The issue is that human contributions are making a significant difference in climate. It does NOT matter that natural contributions are more significant the human contributions. The two must be added, and the total is enough to be the primary driver of our current climate change.

If you want to do something that slows natural CO2 production, that might be a good solution!!!

What do you have on that?

 

Wow! Disbelieves the tens of thousands of scientific papers supporting the science of climate change but believes the hype around the shifting northern magnetic pole

So tell me if you do believe in science why are you not on board with the IPCC?

 

Not a good sign for the human race.

And while there are plenty of scientists who study the mechanism that generates the magnetic poles, why do we need to study it more? Are we going to move it? Unlike the climate, knowing more about the magnetic poles doesn't give us the power to do anything about it.

 

I never said I didn't believe in climate change, the climate is ever changing as it has been for billions of years. That you folks and your disingenuous way of taking something that is perfectly natural and trying to blame it on men. What I disbelieve is what you folks claim man is responsible for, it simply doesn't add up when all factors that effect climate are taken into account. You would be a fool to dismiss the importance of any significant changes to the magnetic poles, the poles are anchored to the core, and our magnetosphere is the only thing keeping everything on the planet alive. Your version of climate change is nothing but a global wealth redistribution hoax, nothing more...