• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hundreds Of Thousands Turn Out For People's Climate March In New York City

SouthernDemocrat said:
Well not entirely. Land use changes are a factor as well as they can change the albedo of the earth's surface. CO2 aside, I don't get how anyone could think we could develop 40% of the world's land surface and not have any impact on the climate.
Click to expand...

That's true too.
 
My question is what did this march accomplish, or what was it supposed to accomplish?

If tehre no more global warming now because of this march?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Your contention seems to be that recent catastrophic forest fires have released more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity has since the dawn of the industrial age. If that is the case, then why has atmospheric CO2 concentrations not doubled in the last few years as a result of those fires?
Click to expand...

That is not my contention, and has not been my contention.
 
Mason66 said:
My question is what did this march accomplish, or what was it supposed to accomplish?

If tehre no more global warming now because of this march?
Click to expand...

Ultimately politicians respond to numbers. Getting several hundred thousand to march for a cause in today's apathetic and cynical political atmosphere is very hard to do and suggests a growing sentiment that politicians must act on climate change or suffer at the polls.

This is how it's always been done in America. Change requires noisemaking and lots of people making their feelings known publicly.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Ultimately politicians respond to numbers. Getting several hundred thousand to march for a cause in today's apathetic and cynical political atmosphere is very hard to do and suggests a growing sentiment that politicians must act on climate change or suffer at the polls.

This is how it's always been done in America. Change requires noisemaking and lots of people making their feelings known publicly.
Click to expand...

Act how?

Are they going to call Mother Nature to testify in front of Congress?
 
sangha said:
Yes you are. You are missing the most important thing, and the only thing that counts as far as global warming goes - the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the most important thing about the climate change agenda. That is, that Man is the only cause, and because of that, the West has to transfer more wealth than at any other time in human history to stop it.

I've merely been presenting data related to other historical causes of CO2 release, and questioned the impact.
 
ocean515 said:
I think you are missing the most important thing about the climate change agenda. That is, that Man is the only cause, and because of that, the West has to transfer more wealth than at any other time in human history to stop it.
Click to expand...

There is a clear record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations that show industrialization has caused it to rise.

I've merely been presenting data related to other historical causes of CO2 release, and questioned the impact.
Click to expand...

If you want to discuss the impact of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, you'll have to show an increase in them. "There were forest fires" is not enough. Not even close
 
Mason66 said:
Act how?

Are they going to call Mother Nature to testify in front of Congress?
Click to expand...

Maybe. Guys like Issa are so illiterate they would probably fall for a woman dressed up that way.

But how about just getting some climate scientists? Anyway, we already know the science. Conservatives are just pretending. The real issue is willingness to vote the trogs out. If the American people are galvanized by this issue, it'll more dark days for the demographically challenged GOP>
 
These people need to go to poluting nations and protest
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Forest fires (large uncontrolled ones) are in fact proximately and indirectly often the result of human activity. So even if your claim were correct, it argues against your position.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken fire was around before Man, and lighting wasn't invented by Ben Franklin.
 
sangha said:
There is a clear record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations that show industrialization has caused it to rise.



If you want to discuss the impact of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, you'll have to show an increase in them. "There were forest fires" is not enough. Not even close
Click to expand...

LOL

If you say so. I'll stick with the scientific research you apparently want to dismiss. Perhaps they are not the right scientists? Best to only consider the funded ones supporting the cause. Got it.
 
ocean515 said:
If I'm not mistaken fire was around before Man, and lighting wasn't invented by Ben Franklin.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken if you think these facts exclude increased large uncontrolled fires due to human activity. Surely you've heard of matches?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The vast majority of carbon not sequestered in fossil fuels, peat, and permafrost, is in the oceans. When we come out of ice ages, the oceans warm, when the oceans warm they cannot sequester as much carbon and thus more is released into the atmosphere. As more carbon is released into the atmosphere, warming is amplified. A good explanation of this is here:

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

You should look at what science has to say about a topic before you become so arrogant as to think that something has occurred to you that has not occurred to scientists that have spent a lifetime working in that field.
Click to expand...
Speaking of arrogance.....if it's so cut and dry as you suggest, why don't the models fall in line with your AGW data?
Hmmmmm?
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

If you say so. I'll stick with the scientific research you apparently want to dismiss. Perhaps they are not the right scientists? Best to only consider the funded ones supporting the cause. Got it.
Click to expand...

The research you cited doesn't show that ancient forest fires raised atmospheric CO2 concentrations above what they are today
 
FaceofBachmann said:
You are mistaken if you think these facts exclude increased large uncontrolled fires due to human activity. Surely you've heard of matches?
Click to expand...

I never suggested they did. I understand it can be difficult when you comment on something without the benefit of content or context.
 
sangha said:
The research you cited doesn't show that ancient forest fires raised atmospheric CO2 concentrations above what they are today
Click to expand...

Correct. And I never suggested they did. Perhaps the intersection of agenda and promotion is causing you some confusion.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Ultimately politicians respond to numbers. Getting several hundred thousand to march for a cause in today's apathetic and cynical political atmosphere is very hard to do and suggests a growing sentiment that politicians must act on climate change or suffer at the polls.

This is how it's always been done in America. Change requires noisemaking and lots of people making their feelings known publicly.
Click to expand...

This may be true, but I'll bet you politicians respond much more to citizens lining up at polling stations to vote and they listen to them when they scream about the increasing costs in their daily lives as a result, partially, of inefficient and exceedingly costly green energy alternatives. You can also bet that most people who vote have no interest in exchanging their comfortable lives to live in the equivalent of a cave.

As for politicians paying attention to large crowds marching, regale us if you would with all the legislation and government action that resulted from the summer sit-in and march-fest around Occupy Wall Street. The 300,000 in NYC were basically the same band of union activists, brainwashed teenagers, and societal miscreants looking for a street party to pass the time.
 
ocean515 said:
Correct. And I never suggested they did. Perhaps the intersection of agenda and promotion is causing you some confusion.
Click to expand...


No, you never suggested that :roll:
ocean515 said:
It has been suggested that the accumulated CO2 release from naturally caused forest fires throughout the ages has released many more times the CO2 into the atmosphere than the total amount of CO2 released by man since the dawn of modern man.

Why wasn't the climate impacted then?
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
No, you never suggested that :roll:
Click to expand...

Note the "throughout the ages" component of my post related to research that has been done. To the reasonable observer, such a clear statement would allow them to conclude that the comment suggested the total amount released over this time period amounted to more than the total amount associated with all human activity. Nowhere in that comment does it provide any numerical reference to specific CO2 measurements.

Again, it would appear that intersection has got you baffled.
 
Meister said:
Speaking of arrogance.....if it's so cut and dry as you suggest, why don't the models fall in line with your AGW data?
Hmmmmm?
Click to expand...
Because they are not made to do short term climate forecasting.
 
ocean515 said:
Note the "throughout the ages" component of my post related to research that has been done. To the reasonable observer, such a clear statement would allow them to conclude that the comment suggested the total amount released over this time period amounted to more than the total amount associated with all human activity. Nowhere in that comment does it provide any numerical reference to specific CO2 measurements.

Again, it would appear that intersection has got you baffled.
Click to expand...

What has me baffled is that you think climate would be affected by all those fires but atmospheric CO2 concentrations would not

But then, the right has never been very good at connecting the dots, particularly when it comes to science
 
sangha said:
What has me baffled is that you think climate would be affected by all those fires but atmospheric CO2 concentrations would not

But then, the right has never been very good at connecting the dots, particularly when it comes to science
Click to expand...

LOL

I have no idea where you are in your thinking my friend. Perhaps you were struck by something in that intersection.

I presented what I've learned, including the massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Another poster attempted to present a rebuttal, but only established that these releases could stay in the atmosphere for centuries. I have no idea how you have concluded I suggested atmospheric CO2 was not impacted by these events.

Perhaps before you complain about the right and science, you should strive to improve your ability to comprehend what you are reading. It would make the complaint so much more impactful.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

I have no idea where you are in your thinking my friend. Perhaps you were struck by something in that intersection.

I presented what I've learned, including the massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Another poster attempted to present a rebuttal, but only established that these releases could stay in the atmosphere for centuries. I have no idea how you have concluded I suggested atmospheric CO2 was not impacted by these events.

Perhaps before you complain about the right and science, you should strive to improve your ability to comprehend what you are reading. It would make the complaint so much more impactful.
Click to expand...

That was not an honest or accurate portrayal of the discussion, which you began by citing all the forest fires that happened, compared them to the CO2 emissions from human activity and asked why they didn't affect the climate

The only way you could ask how those fires did not affect the climate while human activity did is by ignoring the effect both have had on increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. If you considered the CO2 concentrations, you wouldn't have asked because CO2 concentration is the answer - specifically, those fires did not raise the CO2 concentrations higher than they are today.

And if you spent as much time trying to understand how forests have affected the concentrations levels as you have spent on trying to win the internets, you'd understand why human activity has increased CO2 concentrations to the point that they affect global warming but the forest fires you speak of did not. (Hint: because of human activity, there is less carbon locked up in forests and guess where most of it went?)
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Timeline for right wingers acceptance of mainstream science:

On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. 156 years later most polling indicates that approximately 37% of conservatives accept the Theory of Evolution. Thus we can conclude that by 2060 the majority of conservatives will accept what has been universally accepted in science for 150 years now.

The first IPCC assessment was released in 1990. Thus we can assume that the majority of conservatives will not accept AGW until approximately 2190. As it seems to take approximately 8 generations for conservatives to arrive at the same position that mainstream science can arrive at in 1 generation. :2razz:
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
jamesrage said:
Are these people protesting natural climate change warming or alleged man made climate change warming?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I don't argue about hypotheticals here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom