By the way, man can easily destroy the planet with nuclear weapons causing a nuclear winter if not outright
So.., stop being ignorant
Hurricanes continue to get stronger
- Thread starter Ucfmikes
- Start date
So.., stop being ignorant
Lol, the theory of nuclear winter was dispelled of entirely in 1982, and that was when we had much bigger bombs. The world doesn't have enough nukes to take out Mexico, let alone the entire world.
Just for reference: the Tambora eruption in the 1800s was over 2 million times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb. Pretty sure the Earth survived that one.
It was the equivalent of 33 billion tons of TNT, more than the entire nuclear arsenal in the world today.
It was the equivalent of 33 billion tons of TNT, more than the entire nuclear arsenal in the world today.
Cool. Since Mother Nature created a bigass disaster 200 years ago, that gives us a free pass to create our own man-made bigass disasters with a clear conscience!!!!
That’s completely untrue. Mexico? Really? You have lost all credibility
Obviously you don’t know what it takes to make a nuclear winter. Keep believing this BS that is so far out there that it’s making you like an imbecile
You keep trying to pin me into a position that I’m not taking. The climate is changing. Humans have an impact on the planet. Never in doubt. I want to know how much we effect it and how much what we can do will change it and how much that will cost before we decide to go all Green New Deal and destroy our economy unilaterally. It doesn’t seem like that’s an unreasonable position. Not to mention that making our production more expensive and less efficient at the same time that our geopolitical adversaries are making huge gains and aren’t worried about this at all. Might be a good idea to win that battle if we want to have any say in the climate.
I asked what your experience with the federal government is because you seem to think that federally funded scientists are serious and free of bias. If you have any experience with how and what the federal government funds and continues to fund, you’d know that they are the same as any other scientist. The federal government was simply not funding science aimed at disproving any phenomenon that can be seen as detrimental to the President’s plan on Climate Change. So there’s mounds of studies advancing that agenda and the only science that you’ll find in the other direction is privately-funded and you’ve already dismissed that. There is a list of scientists who were well respected before they dared dispute some of the publicly “settled” science and then were blacklisted and publicly lambasted. There are also stories out there of people losing funding when their conclusions didn’t match the expectation. Not to mention the already admitted cases where respected groups cooked the results to keep their funding or narrative.
Which doesn’t even go into the alarmist predictions being wrong so far. So excuse me for not blindly following the emotional appeal into accepting huge policy changes with vague assertions that it’s the right thing to do.
It’s just hilarious that you don’t know the difference between a volcanic blast and a nuclear blast so you just measure it in tons of TNT
Oh brother
It’s just hilarious that you don’t know the difference between a volcanic blast and a nuclear blast so you just measure it in tons of TNT
Oh brother
Volcanoes are capable of putting particulate matter into the stratosphere, which can block out the sun. There are no nuclear weapons in existence that are capable of getting particulate matter into the stratosphere. Face it, you want to believe that humanity is more powerful than it is, when in reality we are nothing. Blow off all of the nukes you want, we can't even begin to make a dent. 2300 nuclear test blasts later and nothing has changed, lol.
This is the foolishness that I’m disputing
They weren’t all detonated at once in major population area throughout the world.
They were often underground!
Nobody is disputing that volcanic eruptions don’t have MORE ENERGY. They are random events
This has nothing to do with increased ocean temperatures possibly caused by humans which
YOU already admitted to before this unbelievable tangent
I’m now the imbecile for even arguing with you about this
Tambora: equivalent of 33 billion tons of TNT, put 14 cubic miles of particulate matter into the stratosphere, blast heard over 1500 miles away. Dropped Earth's average temperature by 3 degrees.
Tsar bomba: largest nuclear bomb ever created by a factor of 2. The only nuclear bomb ever created that was capable of putting particulate matter into the stratosphere. 650 times less powerful than Tambora. Didn't do shit to the climate.
Tsar bomba: largest nuclear bomb ever created by a factor of 2. The only nuclear bomb ever created that was capable of putting particulate matter into the stratosphere. 650 times less powerful than Tambora. Didn't do shit to the climate.
The point is that you think we have any level of control over the climate that matters. We don't. We are miniscule, even at our most powerful. You're so upset about hurricanes being slightly more powerful than they were 20, 30, 50 years ago that you aren't seeing the forest for the trees.
You have absolutely no basic knowledge of even the simplest of things that can result in global warming, etc. whatsoever.
There are hundreds and thousands of articles written over the years that prove that humans have an effect on global warming, the ozone layer, etc
The fact that you completely and continually deny the obvious makes me question your mental stability. You aren’t seeing the trees in the forest at this point
Lol, I'm not denying that we are having an effect on global temperatures. I'm just not falling in line lockstep with those that think we are so powerful that the planet is going to flatline on the table.
We are the equivalent of a red rider bb gun and the Earth has a 50 Cal machine gun with grenade launcher attached. Plus it's got a tank. And a b52 carrying a nuke. It would (and has) taken 100 years to accomplish what the planet can do in a couple of hours. Or an asteroid in a couple of days. Or the sun in a couple of seconds.
I dont work for the government, and many scientists that dont work for the government also believe in climate change, I already provided you with articles with regards to Exxon. Do their scientists not count either?
I have a friend who has a PHD in physics from Ga Tech ,and no, he doesnt work for the government. I dont see him much because he lives across the country, but he most certainly says it is real. He also says you can immediately discount anyones argument when they bring politics into a science debate, which is precisely what you are doing. Science doesnt have a political party, it just has science. 2+2=4 no matter what political party you are a party of.
Our government has given grants to many researchers in various areas of life, and many of them have conducted very good research. Research for the internet was government funded. THe use of lasers was goverment funded. Satelites in space, weapons, and 100s of other things. So this idea that if someone is paid by the government they arent serious or are biased is a completely ridiculous argument.
And by the way, science isnt meant to be funded to prove or disprove anything, it is funded to find out actual truth of things, and what kind of usefual applications can come from that truth, if any. But it is funny you say I am dismissing privately funded research, when I am the one I has linked to Exxon admitting it is real. So you are the one dismissing their privately funded research, not me.
Your economy argument is also bogus. New innovations have always expanded and driven the economy forward. From the steam engine, to automobiles, air travel being accessible, the tech era of the 80s/90s, etc etc, have all created and expanded jobs. So this idea that new technology is going to be bad for the economy is simply not based on any sort of historical accuracy. Plus, China might not be worried about it, but they also have to wear masks to breath half the time because air quality is so bad, which isnt exactly ideal for most Americans I wouldnt think. But even in saying that https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01/11/china-renewable-energy-superpower/ they actually are doing things to improve it and will be the leaders of green energy, for no other reason than we dont have the will to actually be world leaders on issues anymore.
HOw are alarmist predictions wrong? THere are reports that artic ice is melting much faster than anticipated. So yeah, I guess you could say they were wrong, but they were wrong in that it is happening faster than they thought.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ciers-melting-faster-than-previously-thought/
And again, you keep using this emotion canard. Emotion has no place in the actual science no matter how much you want to play that card. It is just your way of trying to make the person you are arguing against out to be weaker, while also allowing you to avoid the actual substance of the debate. I am not gullible and I am not emotional, I promise you that. I just believe the actual experts in this field, and you choose not to, that is the only difference between you and me on this issue, it is has nothing to do with emotion.
Last edited:
I dont think anyone is arguing the planet will die. The planet will be here likely until the sun dies, which will be billions of years down the road. The argument is about the quality of life for both humans and other species, which we very well know is already not good for many species of plants and animals.
Nobody said it’s not real. This is why it’s hard to have a discussion with you. You are absolutely incapable of nuance.
As for science, the scientific method is about testing a theory. You get funding by either putting forth your theory and convincing someone to fund your research or by applying to calls for research in certain areas. In either case, someone with money gives you money based upon your theory. You don’t just find things out. People give you money when the research that you’re doing appeals to them. Hence the bias, both intentional and unintentional.
China is wrecking their environment trying to be the green leader because they see a place for power, not for some ideological reason. We don’t have the “will” because we have a lot of regulations to have to deal with that hamper innovation and a political class that wants to vilify successful people. Bringing up China as an exemplar is ironic.
Like it or not, the public perception is Al Gore’s claims, IPCC’s inaccuracies, and the 12 years claim. They don’t help anything.
But why would the goverment be biased on this issue? It would obviously be better for everyone, including the government, if it isnt real. Because if it is real, it is going to cause major crisis all over the world that governments are doing to have to deal with. From more natural disasters to food and water shortages. So it seems to me, if the government was leading one way or the other, they would try to prove it isnt real. SO I dont even understand the logic behind the idea that you think the government is paying scientists to be biased in favor of global warming.
THe public perception is that climate change is real. The Republican party is basically the only major political party from the developed world that tries to down play it, or simply try to pretend it isnt real. There are certainly ranges in the belief of how serious it is for sure, but most people believe it is real, and that is the public perception.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/consensus-emerges-climate-change-debate-n950646
The problem, is that we know its real, but politicans dont want to make hard decisions. Marco Rubio said on a debate stage he believes it, but he doesnt think it is worth costing jobs. But again, innovation creates jobs, and always has. Secondly, he doesnt consider the costs and #s of jobs lost when cities are wiped out duing to natural disasters. Or when people in Flint are stuck in their homes with lead in their water because no one will buy their homes (and yes, that is more polution than global warming, but you get the point).
Nothing can be done on an individual level that will have a meaninful impact. Yes, we should to the basics, turn the heat/air down when not in use, try to mass commute or drive less, etc etc. But none of that is going to do anything unless everyone does these things, which simply wont happen. This is an issue that government, or private business in mass, has to step in with.
Here is an example of what I mean. The Trump administration rolled back fuel standards on cars. But, the state of California refuses to remove their fuel standards. Car makers, will essentially have to abide by the California standards, or they will lose the largest state in the country in which they can sell their vehicles. So that is an example of both government and private business doing something helpful. But a few people buying hybrids isnt going to help.
I don’t want to keep going around in circles, but I find it interesting that you think government is competent, logical, and pure when they are advancing things you agree with but they are corrupt tools of industry and idealogues when they aren’t.
I guess this is a fundamental difference in ideology, because I think individuals and grassroots actions have great power. Convince the public it’s right and they will do the right thing. You want to use the power of government to force people to do something. I think that is dangerous.
I guess that I’m for a state setting it’s own standards. Better than the federal government.
Yea it is. There have been many more stronger than this one but they didnt hit land or have 24/7 coverage of them like we do now. There is no empirical data that there are more or less storms. Hurricanes happen and sometimes with more frequency and more intensity than other years. After Andrew hit in 92 there was 12 years of relatively quiet tropics followed by the infamous 04/05 seasons. Natural cycle.
The government is many things. The government is more than capable of doing some things well, and other things not well. But, the government is made up of people, that we put in office. THe government isnt something we just have to live with, it is something we can change every 2-4 years.
On some issues I would agree with you. But some issues are too big and need federal compliance, and climant and polution is one of those things. It does one state no good to have certain clean air and water standards, if the state right next to it has terrible air and water standards and ends up polluting their neighboring state anyway. You can't confine the climate to individuals, towns, or states, it doesnt abide by arbitrary lines.
This is true. The scary part is how many of those we elect are little but figureheads for the career DC people who we don’t elect but show up in every cabinet or staff for each side. The government is far more run by these people than the ones we elect. Hence, the swamp.
Whatever you say chief
Read it, study it and dispute it. I’ll post more obvious graphs all day long
Where are all the graphs to dispute it??
Yes, and many of these people are playing to lobbyist. We should certainly vote in better people at all levels of government, that is our own fault. But it also doesnt mean we cant start doing that.
But the human part of the climate is a series of a lot of small behaviors that adds up to a lot. Many of these can be affected by public awareness and power of the marketplace. It’s undeniable that public pressure works in this day and age. So, why are you so adamant that the government needs to enact regulations and laws to change these behaviors?
I don’t think you understand how DC works. It doesn’t matter who we vote in. It’s the same people behind the strings. They just go work for universities, think tanks, non-profits, and lobbying groups when their party/clique is not in power. Then they’re back as soon as we elect someone they’re aligned with. But always they are the ones forming the policies. By creating one set of policies for the whole country, you are giving them more power.
But I think people would respond to positive changes with a cleaner environment. I dont think anyone wants to drink dirty water or breath bad air. But inviduals arent what is going to change that, because individuals can't stop the factory from polluting the air, or the coal mine from ruining the water supply. Government has to regulate those things. Sure, individuals can do their small part, but the small part isnt going to matter if corporations dont do their part. And I dont have faith in most corporations to do their part unless they are forced by the government. I think this is something we are all in together, and we all, people, private business, and government needs to do their part.
The same people only pull strings if they are allowed to pull those strings. If we vote in the right people, they wont be allowed to do that. This is the problem with dark money and things of that nature that we need to get rid of.
It’s not dark money, though. It’s right in the open. You give money to the DNC, or RNC, or any campaign. The new face goes to DC and hires a staff. Where do they get recommendations? How does someone with no government experience know who to hire or trust to advise? They get it from their party. These people are also eminently qualified. You also get your mix of really good and really bad. None of whom are elected though.
Well basically we need to overturn citizens united and get rid of PACs. Their is still a $2500 individual limit to donate to a specific campaign, but that isnt the case with PACs, where people and corporations can donate as much as they wish.
I dont think it is that difficult to put together a team of advisors that are good advisors, we just have to elect people who are going to hire good advisors. I do think there are people who go to DC with good intentions. Some of them probably end up corrupted, and some just dont ever have the power to get things done, but it still comes down to who we vote info office. I dont think we are a very educated or enthusiastic country when it comes to politics or voting. DC is how it is because we allow it to be that way.
Agree. But a lot of this transpired in DC because these types of people go where the power is and we have willfully transferred a huge amount of it to DC. The more power we give to the federal government, the more of this you’ll have.
