When it’s drier somewhere, it’s wetter somewhere else. It snowed in South Florida 40 years ago. Man can alter it some. Not 9 years worth though.
Only 9 years left
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
So mankind can alter our climate ‘some’ but the notion it can change to a point where some of it’s effects
cannot be reversed is hard to believe?
Can yes. Definitely no. Like I said, same amount of water on earth. If it’s dry in one place it’s wet in another. Every so often places that don’t see snow will get it. It’s been that way for ages.
It’s hard to debate someone with such a stellar understanding of our climate.
Those climatologists around the world are such partisan hacks, right?
John Kerry would fit into the Hack category yes. He’s the one the story is about so I’ll go ahead and disagree with him. If that’s ok with you?It’s hard to debate someone with such a stellar understanding of our climate.
Those climatologists around the world are such partisan hacks, right?
Advisors. Same type people that Trump listened to and passed info on that you said he was lying. Maybe they both have bad advisors. Maybe they both have reliable ones. I can guarantee the Earth will be here in 10 years though.
Advisors? LOL.
First off, even The Blaze article linked to Crazy’s OP credited Kerry for saying the scientific community.
Second, NO ONE is saying the Earth won’t be here for crying out loud!!! (And to think posters here are rolling their eyes at Kerry’s ‘hyperbole.’). The idea is for the human race to get its act together while we still can make a difference for the climate conditions our children, grandchildren, and future generations will live with.
Imagine wanting to debate this issue in 2021. When everyone is already moving toward renewables and cleaner energy. The fossil fuel lobbies got you like the cigarette lobbies got Mike pence 20 years ago.
Scientific discovery is constant. The very notion that science is 'settled' is an oxymoron.
It should be pointed out that the cause of the AMO at question here is about a pre-industrial time.
But somehow that change in a commonly held theory based on new research automatically means -- at least to your Twitter Genius -- that we can poo-poo the majority of climatologists whose research leads them to believe in man-made climate change?
No one is debating the value of renewables and cleaner energy and it's disingenuous to frame the complex issue so simply just so that you can gaslight us.
What people are resisting is a wholesale, damn-the-torpedoes approach that will most likely kneecap our economy at a time when our biggest global competitors (including countries that have told us they are our enemy) are using the more efficient and cheaper fossil fuels to ramp up and overtake our industries. There is no real reason the vast amount of steel production needs to be in China other than China is willing to do what it takes to corner the market and the US is not and has no stomach to demand that China meet international standards of labor and regulation. The story is the same industry by industry. Not to mention that oil and coal are strategic assets and we are putting ourselves and our interests at risk by cutting our future production arbitrarily and not only reducing our exports but also likely returning to having to import.
It came from a hypothetical scenario the UN put out in 2018. All it said was that we could completely stop any man made warming if we did basically impossible things by 2030. It wasn't meant to be used as a "point of no return" like AOC and Kerry are suggesting.
Similar threads
