The One Thing About 'Climate Change' That's Always Bothered Me...

originally posted by: reldra
First. they use the word 'problematic'. That word is often used when the author doesn't want to explain something.

...

The man-made changes have obviously had an effect.

You use the word 'obviously'. That word is often used when the author wants people to think there is incontrovertible proof.

I don't think there is such proof. Citation please. Where have 'man-made changes' 'obviously' had an effect? Effect on what? When? Where? Can you prove these change would not have occurred without man's impact? How can you prove that?

Everyone fixes it or it doesn't get fixed.

Fix what? What is broken? How can you prove it is broken? I see a lot of assumptions.

originally posted by: glend
So I ride my electric bicycle to work knowing its negligible but at least I have a clear conscious.

Where does the electricity come from?

My thoughts are two fold:

1) Don't slow down our power grid or exploitation. The best way to advance our technology and get away from fossil fuels will be a robust energy sector to fuel research into alternate sources. The current levels of solar and wind are inefficient, but they will not get any better if we reduce power sources. Also, stop subsidizing them, that will slow down innovation. The inventors need to compete on an even playing field to advance and improve enough to out-perform fossil fuels.

2) Moon colony. The only way that sustainable sources of energy and efficient recycling are truly going to be proven is in an environment without fossil fuels as a safety net. There is no oil on the Moon. We need to try our hand relatively nearby and streamline our alternate technologies before we go for Mars or beyond. In other words, green energy needs to put up or shut up.

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: reldra

What was ''the other scheme that looked better"

I'm all for man taking responsiblity for our actions on this planet, I just have yet to hear a good idea that makes any sense.

To be fair though, I don't think there is any one solution, unless of course it involves a new mindset.

But, the article and the supporting professor do point out that- "“[T]he correlation between emissions and temperatures is none too close. Rising temperatures do not correlate with any degree of neatness to overall levels of emissions.”"

It was the new one that isn't carbon credits.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: reldra
First. they use the word 'problematic'. That word is often used when the author doesn't want to explain something.

...

The man-made changes have obviously had an effect.

You use the word 'obviously'. That word is often used when the author wants people to think there is incontrovertible proof.

I don't think there is such proof. Citation please. Where have 'man-made changes' 'obviously' had an effect? Effect on what? When? Where? Can you prove these change would not have occurred without man's impact? How can you prove that?

Everyone fixes it or it doesn't get fixed.

Fix what? What is broken? How can you prove it is broken? I see a lot of assumptions.

... is OBVIOUSLY an answer when people don't have one.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

from my solar panels, where does your electricity come from?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: reldra

So I'm "not very educated" because I ask questions and don't blindly follow what is being said?

I never said you were not educated.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: reldra

What was ''the other scheme that looked better"

I'm all for man taking responsiblity for our actions on this planet, I just have yet to hear a good idea that makes any sense.

To be fair though, I don't think there is any one solution, unless of course it involves a new mindset.

But, the article and the supporting professor do point out that- "“[T]he correlation between emissions and temperatures is none too close. Rising temperatures do not correlate with any degree of neatness to overall levels of emissions.”"

It was the new one that isn't carbon credits.

Thanks for clarifying

originally posted by: Chickensalad

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: reldra

What was ''the other scheme that looked better"

I'm all for man taking responsiblity for our actions on this planet, I just have yet to hear a good idea that makes any sense.

To be fair though, I don't think there is any one solution, unless of course it involves a new mindset.

But, the article and the supporting professor do point out that- "“[T]he correlation between emissions and temperatures is none too close. Rising temperatures do not correlate with any degree of neatness to overall levels of emissions.”"

It was the new one that isn't carbon credits.

Thanks for clarifying

I know that seems vague. But there has been a better plan proposed. It has been posted on ATS. It was better than carbon credits, which looked like a ponzi scheme. You can find it yourself. I think it was in the newest global warming conference.


This is your thread. You can find it.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: reldra

So I'm "not very educated" because I ask questions and don't blindly follow what is being said?

I never said you were not educated.

So you think being skeptical is a good thing or not?

a reply to: reldra

The pesticides/herbicides to which I speak are the ones being dumped on all of the crops.

The oiligarchy, nice phrase coined by James Corbett in the following documentary, has actively exploited the environment and people of this world for a little over a century. This same industry led to the widespread use of pesticides/herbicides, this network of billionares have guided education through their "benevolent" contributions to the major colleges.

This same network is now placing the blame for their destruction of the environment upon the people they have poisoned and profitted off of. They fund the global warming/overpopulation theories and conveniently never mention that they are big oil. People like Maurice Strong, David Rockefeller and Prince Phillip are the problem, to believe they have benevolent intentions is not something I am willing to buy.



Great information contained within this documentary. I recommend watching

Nature....natural, not owned by any human.

Human who professes to own everything, including the powers in the Universe.

What is to argue...humans believe in ownership of everything, humans change natural, and you cannot act or argue about the fact that natural life has been changed....no argument at all.

The review is about whether life will continue on an Earth that we decided to destroy....and of course it won't.

We make reviewed ancient considerations......millions of years ago life on Earth was snap frozen.

We do a science that involves unnaturally/artificially forming a cold fuel...and life changes.

The fuel is burnt....life changes.

How much time do we have left is an obvious consideration of the human being...how much cold have we removed from evolution.

Evolution does not belong to time....it belongs to its own status...cooling. You cannot place a time evaluation on cooling.

Thorium can be used as a nuclear fuel through breeding to uranium-233 (U-233). ... decays very slowly (its half-life is about three times the age of the Earth)Uranium is the basic fuel for a nuclear power reactor - uranium is a very heavy ... U-238 decays very slowly, its half-life being the same as the age of the Earth.

So we review scientific data that already stated that the use of nuclear fuel and its consumption is older than the age of Earth....why use it then? If a power is 3 times the age of the Earth....then doesn't this information state that you would be removing the age of earth life?

The Earth suddenly has holes in it.....magma fusion as a cold stone releasing hot fluid cools quicker in a modern review.....and demonstrates by sink holes that it is being destroyed first.

Cuba for example and the surrounding areas as volcanic eruptions.

Rome has sink holes....and pompeii erupted.

The moon formed 95 million years after the birth of the solar system.

When a Planet is burnt of its energy....it becomes smaller and also loses its age.

MOON gets hit by asteroids, demonstrating that huge asteroids come close to Earth....
A NASA moon monitoring telescope captured the blast, which could be seen by the naked eye on Earth, on March 17th, 2013. The object ... 56,000 MPH Space Rock Hits Moon,

This review demonstrates that the moon came from the asteroid system.....and that it is constantly hit...the trajectory as it came to Earth. The cold gases that it lost, allowed it to stay near Earth.

Scientists study old data...the Earth was colder then.

New trajectories can therefore form, when radiation paths heat.

Science should stop converting Earth's energy and heating the outer atmospheric radiation interaction.

But what does it matter anyway...for scientists have always considered destruction of all life....and luckily their inventions allowed us to survive....it does not mean that we will survive the cause and effect of science.

Human beings should never support a practice that demonstrates that it destroys life..yet they do.

a reply to: beenharmed

Are humans, us , not part of nature, do we not originate from here....do our products not originate from nature itself...

Unless we are pulling resources from some other planet, everything we are and produce has originated from nature. We just work it into things useful for us as.

Again, I think we just need a different mindset that allows us to make the smallest impact possible.

a reply to: beenharmed
The Moon appeared larger than normal because the Moon was just 59 minutes past its closest approach to Earth in 2015 at mid-eclipse, sometimes called a supermoon. The Moon's apparent diameter was larger than 34' viewed straight overhead, just off the coast of northeast Brazil.[1][2]

The total lunar eclipse was darker than expected, possibly due to recent (April) eruptions of Calbuco volcano.[3]

September 27–28, 2015, SUPER MOON Wikipedia.

If Earth's radiation level increases, it is obvious that the cooling affects of radiation would alter and so would the trajectories...involving radiation.

a reply to: DBCowboy

No, you don't need to believe out of nothing, you need to believe out of decades of physics and observations and people who have spent their lives studying the problem.

You will believe what some expert says about advanced semiconductor physics, because he knows more than you, and not only that, he knows much more more than you think he knows more than you.

There are no subjects in all of human endeavor beyond research mathematics and physical science where the careful collective opinions of the experts have more validity and the opinions of laymen have less validity. Yes, it is elitist, and it should be.

Can you prove these change would not have occurred without man's impact?

Google heat islands, you can easily measure the heating that a bunch of people and civilization have on an environment.

Not to mention all the forests we've cut down that would still be there without humans. That alone is probably enough to affect the climate.

a reply to: CB328

How do we know that allowing massive forestation to grow wouldn't have had a major impact on the planet and other species as well...

The reality is, that we are discussing this in human terms, i.e. we are worried about how our impact on the planet affects us...

Leaving everything be from the start may have destroyed millions of species that we have today. People tend to forget how many things have thrived only BECAUSE of our existence and actions.

The being said, I still think hemp is a better solution than most others.

But again, how do we know at this stage what impact THAT will have on the environment...

The one thing that has always bothered me on the entire subject:
We are supposed to listen to so-called climatologists (on either side). Their data only goes back to the 1920s I have read . Absolutely not taking into consideration climate changes that have been going on for MILLIONS of years?
Listen to biologists , archaeologists , geologists , etc. who can approximately tell the climate at any given time.

This has turned into a political nightmare driven by politicians.More division for the world at a time we need more uniting.

We have climate change because the aliens radiated the Sun and it is now affecting us on earth they plan to get rid of us and slowly but surely will burn as they have done in the past that is what New World Order means

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I's not the science so much as the pro man made climate side NEEDS believers. They NEED people on board with the idea that man is causing all of it.

Why?

Because the "solutions" they envision are so draconian, that they would need followers to enact it.

The debate will rage on, and the earth will keep turning. We're just along for the ride.

imho

This is pure bull#. Like 100% grade A bs. Science doesn't NEED people to believe it is true. Science is true no matter if you believe in it or not.