• 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!

Global warming

A

Ace300

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
69
Reaction score
12
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
To be honest, I really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming or climate change or whatever, and if you do, regardless of whether or not you think humans are a major contributing factor, there isn't a thing anyone can do about it, from what I have seen.

The goal of those that believe in global warming and that humans are a major factor of it is to convince all the governments on the planet to agree there is a problem, to agree humans are the main contributing factor to the problem, and to agree to a solution. Because whatever country disagrees will have far cheaper energy than the rest of the planet and be economically superior to the rest of the planet. As such, there will never be a consensus. So, to all of those that think there is a human caused global warming problem, good luck!
 
Ace300 said:
To be honest, I really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming or climate change or whatever, and if you do, regardless of whether or not you think humans are a major contributing factor, there isn't a thing anyone can do about it, from what I have seen.

The goal of those that believe in global warming and that humans are a major factor of it is to convince all the governments on the planet to agree there is a problem, to agree humans are the main contributing factor to the problem, and to agree to a solution. Because whatever country disagrees will have far cheaper energy than the rest of the planet and be economically superior to the rest of the planet. As such, there will never be a consensus. So, to all of those that think there is a human caused global warming problem, good luck!
Click to expand...
if we all drive those fruity priuses the earth will get cooler- libs
 
Ace300 said:
To be honest, I really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming or climate change or whatever, and if you do, regardless of whether or not you think humans are a major contributing factor, there isn't a thing anyone can do about it, from what I have seen.

The goal of those that believe in global warming and that humans are a major factor of it is to convince all the governments on the planet to agree there is a problem, to agree humans are the main contributing factor to the problem, and to agree to a solution. Because whatever country disagrees will have far cheaper energy than the rest of the planet and be economically superior to the rest of the planet. As such, there will never be a consensus. So, to all of those that think there is a human caused global warming problem, good luck!
Click to expand...

The big deal is that if you switch to 100% Renewable Energy now, you may be able to prevent the burning up of the planet so it doesn't look like Mars. Enough Solar Energy falls on the State of Texas alone to power the World. Deaths of species, extinction, is an obvious warning of the seriousness of the issue. Polluted air. Polluted oceans. Dead zones of thousands of square miles in the Oceans. Not to worry, the wealthy will have bubbles to outlast those that cannot afford bubbles. The politicians will have bubbles and already do. You and me, Grandma and the dog, will get the one finger salute and the "Who could have known?" excuse..
/
 
Ace300 said:
To be honest, I really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming or climate change or whatever, and if you do, regardless of whether or not you think humans are a major contributing factor, there isn't a thing anyone can do about it, from what I have seen.

The goal of those that believe in global warming and that humans are a major factor of it is to convince all the governments on the planet to agree there is a problem, to agree humans are the main contributing factor to the problem, and to agree to a solution. Because whatever country disagrees will have far cheaper energy than the rest of the planet and be economically superior to the rest of the planet. As such, there will never be a consensus. So, to all of those that think there is a human caused global warming problem, good luck!
Click to expand...

No matter how many people agree bank robbery is bad, there will still be bank robbers. So we should just all rob banks. I don't see what the big deal is about robbing banks.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
No matter how many people agree bank robbery is bad, there will still be bank robbers. So we should just all rob banks. I don't see what the big deal is about robbing banks.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to rob banks in every country.

Again, the problem for the global warming caused by humans advocates is to get every country to agree.
 
Ace300 said:
To be honest, I really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming or climate change or whatever, and if you do, regardless of whether or not you think humans are a major contributing factor, there isn't a thing anyone can do about it, from what I have seen.

The goal of those that believe in global warming and that humans are a major factor of it is to convince all the governments on the planet to agree there is a problem, to agree humans are the main contributing factor to the problem, and to agree to a solution. Because whatever country disagrees will have far cheaper energy than the rest of the planet and be economically superior to the rest of the planet. As such, there will never be a consensus. So, to all of those that think there is a human caused global warming problem, good luck!
Click to expand...
Hello, and welcome to DP,
The only way to get people to not use fossil fuels, is for the alternative to be some combination of cheaper or more convenient,
than what people are already using. If the alternative is naturally the lowest cost, or somehow more convenient,
you will not be able to keep the people away.
My thinking is that this will happen on it's own when oil gets about $90 a barrel again.
You are right in that if a government raises the cost of the fuel through taxation, it will just cause an economic handicap to that nation,
compared to others without the excess overhead.
 
Ace300 said:
To be honest, I really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming or climate change or whatever, and if you do, regardless of whether or not you think humans are a major contributing factor, there isn't a thing anyone can do about it, from what I have seen.

The goal of those that believe in global warming and that humans are a major factor of it is to convince all the governments on the planet to agree there is a problem, to agree humans are the main contributing factor to the problem, and to agree to a solution. Because whatever country disagrees will have far cheaper energy than the rest of the planet and be economically superior to the rest of the planet. As such, there will never be a consensus. So, to all of those that think there is a human caused global warming problem, good luck!
Click to expand...

I can even go much further. I hope the predictions of warming happen. A warmer wetter world is nicer for humans. I don't see any sign of anything like more than 10% of those predictions happening but we can hope.
 
DaveFagan said:
The big deal is that if you switch to 100% Renewable Energy now, you may be able to prevent the burning up of the planet so it doesn't look like Mars. Enough Solar Energy falls on the State of Texas alone to power the World. Deaths of species, extinction, is an obvious warning of the seriousness of the issue. Polluted air. Polluted oceans. Dead zones of thousands of square miles in the Oceans. Not to worry, the wealthy will have bubbles to outlast those that cannot afford bubbles. The politicians will have bubbles and already do. You and me, Grandma and the dog, will get the one finger salute and the "Who could have known?" excuse..
/
Click to expand...

This is a science heavy area of debate. There is no science what so ever that human activity with fossil fuels would ever ever result in such a scenario.
 
Ace300 said:
To be honest, I really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming or climate change or whatever, and if you do, regardless of whether or not you think humans are a major contributing factor, there isn't a thing anyone can do about it, from what I have seen.

The goal of those that believe in global warming and that humans are a major factor of it is to convince all the governments on the planet to agree there is a problem, to agree humans are the main contributing factor to the problem, and to agree to a solution. Because whatever country disagrees will have far cheaper energy than the rest of the planet and be economically superior to the rest of the planet. As such, there will never be a consensus. So, to all of those that think there is a human caused global warming problem, good luck!
Click to expand...

Its all about using fear to manipulate the masses. Obviously as a politician if you can convince people they are doomed and that only you can save them they are going to pay you lots of money to lead them towards salvation. Financing junk science to give you the disinformation that you want will assist you greatly with this agenda hence you create things like the IPCC to rubber stamp it

Why do you think its always the politicians who are the ones screaming the longest and loudest about the alleged certainties and absolutes of AGW.

Al Gore anyone .....? :wink:
 
Last edited:
Ace300 said:
To be honest, I really don't see what the big deal is ...
there isn't a thing anyone can do about it, from what I have seen.
Click to expand...

BINGO!

Like language, burning stuff is a hallmark of our species, and since there are
seven and half billion of us, how are you going to stop them all doing it?
 
Ace300 said:
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to rob banks in every country.

Again, the problem for the global warming caused by humans advocates is to get every country to agree.
Click to expand...

The problem for the "bank robbery is bad" advocates is to get every person to not rob banks.

See, your point seems to revolve around this notion that if one nation refuses to change with the rest, this means we're not still better off.

So Belgium decides to just tell us to piss off and burns coal all day...so what? On the premise that increasing CO2 concentrations may be unhealthy for humanity, we're still better off with 98% of the world's population going towards renewables even if the last 2% doesn't. Right?

I really have no idea what point you think you're making. "It's hard to get the entire world to agree on one thing?" Uhh, yeah. It is. For reference, see all of human history.
 
Deuce said:
The problem for the "bank robbery is bad" advocates is to get every person to not rob banks.

See, your point seems to revolve around this notion that if one nation refuses to change with the rest, this means we're not still better off.

So Belgium decides to just tell us to piss off and burns coal all day...so what? On the premise that increasing CO2 concentrations may be unhealthy for humanity, we're still better off with 98% of the world's population going towards renewables even if the last 2% doesn't. Right?

I really have no idea what point you think you're making. "It's hard to get the entire world to agree on one thing?" Uhh, yeah. It is. For reference, see all of human history.
Click to expand...

It's not about bank robbery being bad. It's about global warming will destroy the human race.

No one is saying robbing banks will result in the end of the human race and that we need draconian measures to stop it.

There are people claiming global warming will destroy the human race and that we need draconian measures to stop it.
 
Deuce said:
The problem for the "bank robbery is bad" advocates is to get every person to not rob banks.

See, your point seems to revolve around this notion that if one nation refuses to change with the rest, this means we're not still better off.

So Belgium decides to just tell us to piss off and burns coal all day...so what? On the premise that increasing CO2 concentrations may be unhealthy for humanity, we're still better off with 98% of the world's population going towards renewables even if the last 2% doesn't. Right?

I really have no idea what point you think you're making. "It's hard to get the entire world to agree on one thing?" Uhh, yeah. It is. For reference, see all of human history.
Click to expand...

Then let the US be the one nation that refuses to change.
 
Ace300 said:
It's not about bank robbery being bad. It's about global warming will destroy the human race.

No one is saying robbing banks will result in the end of the human race and that we need draconian measures to stop it.

There are people claiming global warming will destroy the human race and that we need draconian measures to stop it.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes. Typical tactic. Focus on the extreme rhetoric.

Personally, I'd rather stick to the science. Which doesn't say "destroy the human race," no matter how much you people want it to say that.
 
Deuce said:
Ahh yes. Typical tactic. Focus on the extreme rhetoric.

Personally, I'd rather stick to the science. Which doesn't say "destroy the human race," no matter how much you people want it to say that.
Click to expand...
When you have people like James Hansen, the former head of the GISS publishing things that say just that,
you have the question the alarmist side of the argument.
Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change.
Click to expand...
Do you not think Hansen's rhetoric is extreme?
 
longview said:
When you have people like James Hansen, the former head of the GISS publishing things that say just that,
you have the question the alarmist side of the argument.
Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Do you not think Hansen's rhetoric is extreme?
Click to expand...

1) He didn't say "destroy the human race".
2) It's not rhetoric; it's the evidence-based conclusion of a scientific paper.
 
Surface Detail said:
1) He didn't say "destroy the human race".
2) It's not rhetoric; it's the evidence-based conclusion of a scientific paper.
Click to expand...
Except that the scenarios Hansen uses an almost impossible CO2 level!
Things like,
Climate sensitivity reaches large values at 8–32×CO2 (approx. 2500–10 000 ppm; figure 7b).
Click to expand...
Humans have been using Fossil fuels for over two centuries, and even if you count 100% of the increase in
CO2 levels from the burning of fossil fuels, the level has only increased by 133 ppm.
Hansen is making warnings, IF the levels increases an additional 2100 to 9600 ppm.
What do you think is the likelihood, that humans can even reach the first doubling at 560 ppm,
much less the additional 2100 ppm low number Hansen is discussing?
 
longview said:
When you have people like James Hansen, the former head of the GISS publishing things that say just that,
you have the question the alarmist side of the argument.
Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Do you not think Hansen's rhetoric is extreme?
Click to expand...

They analyzed an extreme scenario and came up with extreme results.

longview said:
Except that the scenarios Hansen uses an almost impossible CO2 level!
Things like,

Humans have been using Fossil fuels for over two centuries, and even if you count 100% of the increase in
CO2 levels from the burning of fossil fuels, the level has only increased by 133 ppm.
Hansen is making warnings, IF the levels increases an additional 2100 to 9600 ppm.
What do you think is the likelihood, that humans can even reach the first doubling at 560 ppm,
much less the additional 2100 ppm low number Hansen is discussing?
Click to expand...


Yes, it was an extreme scenario. "Burning all fossil fuels."
 
Deuce said:
They analyzed an extreme scenario and came up with extreme results.




Yes, it was an extreme scenario. "Burning all fossil fuels."
Click to expand...

So do you think that is extreme rhetoric, from basically the founding Scientist of the AGW movement?
 
longview said:
So do you think that is extreme rhetoric, from basically the founding Scientist of the AGW movement?
Click to expand...

I think it's a scientific analysis of an extreme scenario.

There's an asteroid calculator on the internet that suggests an end of humanity if I put in large enough numbers. Is that "extreme rhetoric?"
 
Deuce said:
I think it's a scientific analysis of an extreme scenario.
Click to expand...
Extreme, in that it is an almost impossible scenario.
Using a scenario that is almost impossible, is hyperbole, not science!
 
longview said:
Extreme, in that it is an almost impossible scenario.
Using a scenario that is almost impossible, is hyperbole, not science!
Click to expand...

It is not an almost impossible scenario. It is a reasonable analysis of what is likely to happen if humanity insists on burning all of the potentially accessible fossil fuels remaining in the ground. Don't forget that, currently, about half of human CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans and land surface. There is no guarantee that this process will continue indefinitely. Indeed, there could come a point at which this reverses as rising temperatures reduce the solubility of CO2 in water and vegetation begins to die away.

In order to avoid this scenario, humanity has to at some point decide to leave some fossil fuels in the ground. Some here claim that this is impossible for political or economic reasons. In which case, there is a reasonable probability that Hansen's scenario will come to pass.
 
Fletch said:
That isn't possible, nor will it be in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

It's certainly possible. The Amish have a blueprint for it already, don't ya' know? It's about education and that is the reality.

/
 
longview said:
Extreme, in that it is an almost impossible scenario.
Using a scenario that is almost impossible, is hyperbole, not science!
Click to expand...

Do you still believe this to be true if less-extreme scenarios are also analyzed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom