• 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!

What is so hard about climate change?

Craig234

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
47,090
Reaction score
22,927
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
For billions of years, the planet didn't have a lot of human actions.

For thousands of years, humans had little impact.

For the last century, after technology created the massive use of fossil fuels and the human population exploded, huge amounts of gasses from fossil fuel burning have been released into the atmosphere, having a huge effect. At the same time, trees that helped the atmosphere have been largely destroyed.

Science says that these continued activities will cause great harm. Corrupt companies who make money from fossil fuels lie and deny the science.

That's all there is to it. What's so damned hard? We either make changes to reduce the fossil fuel harm, or we get the harm. What's the problem understanding that?
 
We have a large swath of idiots that want to feel special so they believe conspiracy theory instead of science.
 
Simple. The left was the first to start listening, so the right had to oppose it.

None of the people arrogantly and idiotically playing armchair expert in this subforum do it in any other area of science. They wouldn't dare argue with their heart surgeon about how to place a stent. They wouldn't tell their neurosurgeon that the need to remove a tumor from their brain is just a Chinese hoax designed to victimize conservatives. They don't go to physics boards to drool about how Quantum Loop Gravity obviously cannot unify field theory and quantum physics, and how they have the *real* answer.

It's only AGW, because that's the only one they've got a political tribalist basis to attack.
 
ecofarm said:
We have a large swath of idiots that want to feel special so they believe conspiracy theory instead of science.
Click to expand...

That no doubt contributes.
 
We have conspiracy theorists who allege the Coal and Fossil Fuel industry promotes the idea climate does not change. All they promote is to remove the blame from Humans and want the world to stop living with panic or intense fear. Climate change will do a ton of good.

Take Greenland. It would open a huge part of Earth to being logical for human settlement. As population increases, the quest for more land will only increase. We could find we can even use Antarctica once it warms up.
 
Mr Person said:
Simple. The left was the first to start listening, so the right had to oppose it.

None of the people arrogantly and idiotically playing armchair expert in this subforum do it in any other area of science. They wouldn't dare argue with their heart surgeon about how to place a stent. They wouldn't tell their neurosurgeon that the need to remove a tumor from their brain is just a Chinese hoax designed to victimize conservatives. They don't go to physics boards to drool about how Quantum Loop Gravity obviously cannot unify field theory and quantum physics, and how they have the *real* answer.

It's only AGW, because that's the only one they've got a political tribalist basis to attack.
Click to expand...

I find this statement ironically humorous.
 
Last edited:
Sabre said:
I find this statement ironically humorous.
Click to expand...

Some people have real college degrees in the subject, unlike the merry band of conspiracy spammers and blog shills.
 
Robertinfremont said:
We have conspiracy theorists who allege the Coal and Fossil Fuel industry promotes the idea climate does not change. All they promote is to remove the blame from Humans and want the world to stop living with panic or intense fear. Climate change will do a ton of good.

Take Greenland. It would open a huge part of Earth to being logical for human settlement. As population increases, the quest for more land will only increase. We could find we can even use Antarctica once it warms up.
Click to expand...

Yes all the residents of Florida will need to move to Greenland. Climate change brings sea level rise which will make less land available for humans not more.

a4273e5225c75745f6d6e704b8f25bb1.png
 
Mr Person said:
Simple. The left was the first to start listening, so the right had to oppose it.

None of the people arrogantly and idiotically playing armchair expert in this subforum do it in any other area of science. They wouldn't dare argue with their heart surgeon about how to place a stent. They wouldn't tell their neurosurgeon that the need to remove a tumor from their brain is just a Chinese hoax designed to victimize conservatives. They don't go to physics boards to drool about how Quantum Loop Gravity obviously cannot unify field theory and quantum physics, and how they have the *real* answer.

It's only AGW, because that's the only one they've got a political tribalist basis to attack.
Click to expand...

You have never read a physics journal have you? Trust me you wanna see knife fights you will find them there. Consensus is not a scientific thing. Science is never settled. It always evolves.

Some of your examples are not really scientific exploration but engineering application, they are not the same thing. Engineering uses best practices using known techniques and science in application. Scientific exploration is just that. Exploration. The field by definition is not completely known.
 
Craig234 said:
For billions of years, the planet didn't have a lot of human actions.

For thousands of years, humans had little impact.

For the last century, after technology created the massive use of fossil fuels and the human population exploded, huge amounts of gasses from fossil fuel burning have been released into the atmosphere, having a huge effect. At the same time, trees that helped the atmosphere have been largely destroyed.

Science says that these continued activities will cause great harm. Corrupt companies who make money from fossil fuels lie and deny the science.

That's all there is to it. What's so damned hard? We either make changes to reduce the fossil fuel harm, or we get the harm. What's the problem understanding that?
Click to expand...

OK, good argument so far.

Next, can you cite some sort of actual trouble that might result from this?

I will need you to cite a particular location, some local council or other, anywhere in the world, and a specific bad thing that will result in some problem that will cause any sort of significant trouble for that local council.
 
Craig234 said:
For billions of years, the planet didn't have a lot of human actions.

For thousands of years, humans had little impact.

For the last century, after technology created the massive use of fossil fuels and the human population exploded, huge amounts of gasses from fossil fuel burning have been released into the atmosphere, having a huge effect. At the same time, trees that helped the atmosphere have been largely destroyed.

Science says that these continued activities will cause great harm. Corrupt companies who make money from fossil fuels lie and deny the science.

That's all there is to it. What's so damned hard? We either make changes to reduce the fossil fuel harm, or we get the harm. What's the problem understanding that?
Click to expand...

"At the same time, trees that helped the atmosphere have been largely destroyed."

The world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago, and the data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage: China and India.

This surprising new study shows that the two emerging countries with the world’s biggest populations are leading the improvement in greening on land. The effect stems mainly from ambitious tree planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries. In 2017 alone, India broke its own world record for the most trees planted after volunteers gathered to plant 66 million saplings in just 12 hours.

The greening phenomenon was first detected by researchers using satellite data in the mid-1990s, but they did not know whether human activity was one of its chief, direct causes.
Click to expand...
NASA Happily Reports the Earth is Greener, With More Trees Than 20 Years Ago–and It's Thanks to China, India


This is just the beginning of your mistakes and sloppy thinking.
 
Craig234 said:
For billions of years, the planet didn't have a lot of human actions.

For thousands of years, humans had little impact.

For the last century, after technology created the massive use of fossil fuels and the human population exploded, huge amounts of gasses from fossil fuel burning have been released into the atmosphere, having a huge effect. At the same time, trees that helped the atmosphere have been largely destroyed.

Science says that these continued activities will cause great harm. Corrupt companies who make money from fossil fuels lie and deny the science.

That's all there is to it. What's so damned hard? We either make changes to reduce the fossil fuel harm, or we get the harm. What's the problem understanding that?
Click to expand...

The problem is believing what they've been telling us for the last 50 years.
Have any of the dire predictions come true? Besides that, their recommended
cure for the "problem" would be an economic disaster. Do you really believe
the world economy can run on solar panels and windmills?
 
Craig234 said:
For billions of years, the planet didn't have a lot of human actions.

For thousands of years, humans had little impact.

For the last century, after technology created the massive use of fossil fuels and the human population exploded, huge amounts of gasses from fossil fuel burning have been released into the atmosphere, having a huge effect. At the same time, trees that helped the atmosphere have been largely destroyed.

Science says that these continued activities will cause great harm. Corrupt companies who make money from fossil fuels lie and deny the science.

That's all there is to it. What's so damned hard? We either make changes to reduce the fossil fuel harm, or we get the harm. What's the problem understanding that?
Click to expand...

LOL science says that? You mean a small group of maniacal fanatics who claim the world is gonna end- and theyve always been wrong since before. Why should anyone believe them now?
 
Craig234 said:
For billions of years, the planet didn't have a lot of human actions.

For thousands of years, humans had little impact.

For the last century, after technology created the massive use of fossil fuels and the human population exploded, huge amounts of gasses from fossil fuel burning have been released into the atmosphere, having a huge effect. At the same time, trees that helped the atmosphere have been largely destroyed.

Science says that these continued activities will cause great harm. Corrupt companies who make money from fossil fuels lie and deny the science.

That's all there is to it. What's so damned hard? We either make changes to reduce the fossil fuel harm, or we get the harm. What's the problem understanding that?
Click to expand...

The climate change narrative is not supported by all scientists and those who disagree with popular narratives have produced some fairly convincing arguments against misguided assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data. Humans do not control the weather and cannot fix the weather if they think it becomes broken. They may as well be supporting native rain dances as supporting the destruction of modern civilization in the name of preserving the planet.
 
Steve Case said:
The problem is believing what they've been telling us for the last 50 years.
Have any of the dire predictions come true?
Click to expand...

Yes. Clearly for some, the science discussing long term effects including in a century is just too hard to understand.

Besides that, their recommended cure for the "problem" would be an economic disaster. Do you really believe the world economy can run on solar panels and windmills?
Click to expand...

It would be expensive; less of an economic disaster than not doing it; and there's a lot more needed than just solar panels and windmills.
 
Craig234 said:
Yes. Clearly for some, the science discussing long term effects including in a century is just too hard to understand.



It would be expensive; less of an economic disaster than not doing it; and there's a lot more needed than just solar panels and windmills.
Click to expand...

Can you articulate the problem?

What bad thing, the worst thing, do you expect to happen and where will this bad thing happen most?
 
Craig234 said:
It's clear why it's so hard for you, but the forum doesn't allow saying.
Click to expand...

Please post study links to clear unequivocal proof that the world is somehow in danger, because I sure as hell wont take your word for it.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
"At the same time, trees that helped the atmosphere have been largely destroyed."
Click to expand...

Your jerky tone keeps the reply short - yes, the issue is more complicated. However, the relevant history of forests and trees includes that humans have removed half of the trees on the planet since agricultural began, combined with the fossil fuel use in the last century. Some reading:

Trying to Plant a Trillion Trees Won'''t Solve Anything | WIRED

We Can’t Just Plant Billions of Trees to Stop Climate Change | Discover Magazine

Earth has more trees than it did 35 years ago - but there’s a huge catch | World Economic Forum

Fact Check: Are There Really More Trees Today Than 100 Years Ago?

The Planet Now Has More Trees Than It Did 35 Years Ago - Pacific Standard

And not all trees are equal. As noted in some of the links:

That "greening," however, masks the ecological impacts of replacing diverse natural landscapes with monoculture crops. So while Earth may presently have more trees than 35 years ago, the study confirms that some of its most productive and biodiverse biomes—especially tropical forests and savannas—are significantly more damaged and degraded, reducing their resilience and capacity to afford ecosystem services.
Click to expand...
 
Any chance you can reply to me posts and tell me what bad stuff you expect to happen is some particular place?

That is; do you have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about?
 
Tim the plumber said:
OK, good argument so far.

Next, can you cite some sort of actual trouble that might result from this?

I will need you to cite a particular location, some local council or other, anywhere in the world, and a specific bad thing that will result in some problem that will cause any sort of significant trouble for that local council. [/COLOR]
Click to expand...

So, you're saying if I shoot bullets from this gun into that crowd over there, bad things will happen.

I will need you to cite a particular person, some group of people or another, anywhere in the crowd, and the specific bad thing that will result in some problem that will cause any sort of significant injury for those people. Otherwise, there's no reason not to shoot.
 
Craig234 said:
So, you're saying if I shoot bullets from this gun into that crowd over there, bad things will happen.

I will need you to cite a particular person, some group of people or another, anywhere in the crowd, and the specific bad thing that will result in some problem that will cause any sort of significant injury for those people. Otherwise, there's no reason not to shoot.
Click to expand...

No.

If you shoot bullets into the crowd there will be bad thins happening.

There is a likelyhood of damage to each person.

Now where on earth, anywhere, is there some where that is at all likely to be negatively effected by any specific problem from a warmer world? Just at all likely. Even possible will do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom