• 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 your view on climate change?

What is your view on climate change?

  • Climate change does not occur.There is no global warming or cooling.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    46
There is much more effective solutions. A Space Based Solar Network (SBSN) could provide the power demand of the entire world three times over and provide energy at half the cost that we are paying now. I read a business plan, and essentially the fuel for the space planes, space planes, launching facilities, and materials themselves would cost 100 billion dollars over 10 years. These costs does not include R&D facilities and all labor. I am not educated enough on the subject to give an accurate estimate on the rest of the project, but we could be safe in our assumptions. Let's assume 100 billion dollars for 10 years, to a total of 1 trillion dollars.

If we really wanted to as a country, through deficit spending we could solve the entire world's energy needs if we wanted to. And, we could transition the network to the private sector. The beauty of this is this method will produce excess energy 24 hours a day. The network will be capable to produce three times the world's demand of power. Therefore, there is room for development across the globe. There is absolutely no pollution. There would have to be no fly zones over power retrieval stations across the globe, but there are no fly zones across nuclear power plants.

The NASA design of such a network is compartmentalized. This basically means they can add more, or take away compartments, based off of repair or upgrades. The network could probably be scaled past the 155 TW marker when we need it to.

To me that is a solution because it ends the debate. We wouldn't release carbon powering the grid at least, and we could rest at ease in the fact that we would greatly reduce the amount of CO2 released into the air. The deficit spending isn't a big deal in my opinion (I don't want to get into a debate about economics). I've written my representatives though, and the republican who actually wrote back to me, said he only wants to harness the available carbon resources in the country. He has no interest in such a project.

To me that smells of lobby.

But I think this system of continuing to make hydrocarbons is a bad idea. What is so bad about harnessing the sun?

I like bold ideas, and Space Based Solar Network (SBSN) definitely fits there, but we are a long way from
that being practical, and we would still need to convert the power into a portable storage mechanism like hydrocarbons.
Man made hydrocarbons use atmospheric Co2 to make the hydrocarbons, and so are 100% carbon neutral.
The source of the energy is another matter. SBSN, if the technology and cost could be validated as viable
could be a good source for power.
Storing the energy as hydrocarbons, would be an easy way to adapt it to existing infrastructures.
 
Which may be a symptom of the problem.

The last fifteen years have been about the warmest fifteen year stretch we have ever measured directly on the planet. Nine of the ten hottest years have all occured in the last fifteen years or so.

Leave the complicated stuff to the educated people, OK? My knowledge of science is fairly extensive, but I would never presume to tell a climatologist he's wrong. Especially if I didnt understand basic scientific issues like equilibrium.

Quote Originally Posted by Tim the plumber

I don't know what "equiliberate" means....

I have been comfortable using and understanding the word equilibrium since about the age of 11.

Which climatologist have I told that they are wrong?

I have, as far as I am aware, simply pointed out that the IPCC has predicted a very minor sea level rise etc and that I challenge anyone to show me anything which suggests that they have underestimated the issue. Can you?
 
Smegol,

I (generally called denier/devil/whatever by the wramists) agree that having new power sources rather than oil and coal will be fantastic. I just think that what we are doing in regards the this AGW drivel is madness which will do vastly more harm than good.
 
Obviously, natural forces have changed the planet many times over, and mankind will likely be wiped off the planet one day by a meteor or the next ice age.
BUT, our recent (last 100 years) activity of digging up millions of years of stored CO2 and pumping it into the atmosphere is having a deleterious effect.
Every scientific org agrees. Our only disagreements should be in the ways to reduce and capture C02.
 
I have been comfortable using and understanding the word equilibrium since about the age of 11.

Which climatologist have I told that they are wrong?

I have, as far as I am aware, simply pointed out that the IPCC has predicted a very minor sea level rise etc and that I challenge anyone to show me anything which suggests that they have underestimated the issue. Can you?
Sea level rise is estimated to be somewhere between .5 and 1 meter+ via IPCC. Other estimates put the higher risk at 2 meters.

This is going to be pretty challenging for coastal habitation, according to people who devote their lives to studying this stuff. Its not a minor rise at all.

RealClimate: Sea level in the 5th IPCC report

Want to see what a 1 meter rise will do to the world coastlines? Check out this map.
Flood Maps
 

I think it is you who should get a grip.

You wish us all to take action based on ...... erm... nothing you are willing to describe.....[
/COLOR]





Actually I don't 'wish anyone to do anything'. Those are your words.

What I said was that if people who live where rising sea levels are projected don't react appropriately they will have a problem.

It's their possible problem and it's their choice.

I don't give a damn what they do or don't do because it won't affect me.
 
Last edited:
Sea level rise is estimated to be somewhere between .5 and 1 meter+ via IPCC. Other estimates put the higher risk at 2 meters.

This is going to be pretty challenging for coastal habitation, according to people who devote their lives to studying this stuff. Its not a minor rise at all.

RealClimate: Sea level in the 5th IPCC report

Want to see what a 1 meter rise will do to the world coastlines? Check out this map.
Flood Maps
Depending on which measuring method you like, NOAA tide gauges vs Satellite,
the average Sea Level rise is between 1.14 mm/year (Gauge) to 3.3 mm/year (satellite)
So at the current rates, it will take between 300 and 877 years for sea levels to raise 1 meter.
To get to 1 meter by year 2100, the rate of the rise is going to have to increase, a lot.
I still question the discrepancy between the gauges and satellite measurements.
 
Depending on which measuring method you like, NOAA tide gauges vs Satellite,
the average Sea Level rise is between 1.14 mm/year (Gauge) to 3.3 mm/year (satellite)
So at the current rates, it will take between 300 and 877 years for sea levels to raise 1 meter.
To get to 1 meter by year 2100, the rate of the rise is going to have to increase, a lot.
I still question the discrepancy between the gauges and satellite measurements.

While an analysis by 'Longview' is quite compelling, I think I'll take the expert opinions over yours, thank you.
 
Come back and tell us all about it after your seaside home is destroyed by climate change.

What causes climate change doesn't really matter.

What does matter is that those who don't prepare for it will suffer the consequences.

Wait and see. :lamo

I have little pity for those who, out of wrong-headed stupidity don't prepare and let mother nature destroy what they have built.

1.I do not own a seaside home.
2.A seaside home being destroyed by natural forces is not proof of man made climate change.
 
My view on 'Climate Change' and on change in general is that it is going to happen whether anyone wants it or not.

Don't think so?- Wait and see.

Just talking about this is a waste of time.

Those who don't prepare for it will suffer the consequences.





Anyone who thinks that the human race has no control over, and can't affect what happens on this planet is out of touch with reality.




"Better days are coming." ~But not for those who are out of touch and running out of time like some people in the GOP.


I know in many parts of the country there is a saying that if you do not like the weather then just wait a minute it will change on you.
 
I used to be a climate change denier, trusting the spokesmen from my political team as the honest and ethical ones on any issue. However, in recently years I'm been forced to rethink that assessment and consider all sides and positions more objectively. At present the most honest answer is I'm not sure but this one thing I have concluded, I don't trust the people speaking the loudest against climate change's legitimacy farther than I can throw and elephant. .

I have never been a natural climate change denier.The earth's climate changes its how we go in and out of ice ages and many times those changes will be severe and many times those changes will be severe.

- Air pollution is so bad in some American cities due to internal combustion engine car exhaust weather forecasters issue smog alerts.

- In cities with high levels of internal combustion engine car exhaust medical experts say the population in those cities suffer much higher incidents of chronic respiratory health issues, especially children.

- An entire region of Louisiana where much of the state's petroleum industry is concentrated has become known as "Cancer Alley" due to the much higher incidents of cancer from among its residents. Full disclosure: Efforts have been made to dismiss the health concerns of Cancer Alley residents as "normal," possibly PR actions made by groups with vested interests in the petroleum industry. Not sure.

- There's no question that the 9/11 attacks on the WTC, the War in Afghanistan response, The war in Iraq, the Patriot Act where Americans lost many of their privacy rights, TSA airport body screeners that deny Americans privacy over their own bodies, Operation Desert Storm, the US Embassy in Iran hostage crisis in the 1970s, a batch of dictators controlling the US economy via OPEC and North Korea's entry into the nuclear club all without exception trace their roots to the petroleum oligopoly over personal transportation.

Even if global warming is a complete lie, why on earth would any American want any of this and more to continue? What I think is a big motive is political tribalism and not resisting efforts toward energy modernization means their side is giving in to the "environmentalist wackos" and ignore everything except the climate change debate, which they deny is based in truth

Those are issues separate of climate change. Trying to tie in pollution issues with climate change as though if you do not believe in the man made global warming fairy tale religion then somehow you are for pollution in your city, lake or water supply is a dishonest tactic by the man made global warming fairy tale crowd.
 
Who said anything about man-made climate change?

It certainly wasn't me.

If you didn't then I apologize.However the man made global warming fairy tale side often tries to paint anyone who doesn't believe in man made global warming religion as a denier of climate change regardless if that person does or doesn't believe in climate change.
 
Last edited:
I have never been a natural climate change denier.The earth's climate changes its how we go in and out of ice ages and many times those changes will be severe and many times those changes will be severe.



Those are issues separate of climate change. Trying to tie in pollution issues with climate change as though if you do not believe in the man made global warming fairy tale religion then somehow you are for pollution in your city, lake or water supply is a dishonest tactic by the man made global warming fairy tale crowd.

What I'm saying is many of the same solutions to addressing global warming are things we ought to be pursuing anyway for other reasons. Even if not everyone thinks man has done anything to cause and cannot do anything to prevent climate change, surely we can agree on reducing pollution, ending the despots control over much of our economy, defunding nuclear proliferation in the hands of America's adversaries and stop the funding of Anti-Americanism that both motivates and finances mass murder against Americans. If we strategically deal with those issues, we get the environmentalist wackos to unwittingly join forces with us. We fire the dictators from their control the US economy job. Nuclear proliferation runs out of money. Anti-American middle eastern propaganda as well as the terrorism it inspires goes bankrupt. We don't end up inadvertently driving the Middle-East into dangerous alliances with China and Russia at our own peril; instead Chin, Russia and the rest of the world are buying American made electric car exports.

"There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." — President Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, January 21, 1981
 
Last edited:
I believe climate change occurs naturally regardless of how minute or severe those changes are.It is something that has been going on for billions of years on this planet and it is stupid to use a hundred or two hundred years of temperatures changes to claim we are having man made induced climate change. If the billions of years of climate change was a bucket of water the last 100-200 years would be microscopic drop of water.
So the widened hole in the ozone layer, our reaction to it, and it's subsequent behavior was a cosmic fluke?

Lake Erie wasn't almost dead from man's waste, it was just a "normal cycle" of nature?

Billions of barrels of oil that burned off in Kuwait "just happened" to coincide with atmospheric behavior similar to a volcanic eruption?

Yeah, OK ... lol!
 
Last edited:
What I'm saying is many of the same solutions to addressing global warming are things we ought to be pursuing anyway for other reasons.

Those issues should be pursued on their own merits instead of slapping on the man made global warming issue to it. For example stopping water pollution should be pursued because polluted water is harmful to humans and lifeforms.Slapping the al gore oh my god the world is going to warm is just going to turn people away and make it seem its more about global warming than fighting water pollution.
 
#2 most closely fits my current understanding, with the caveat that I'm not fully convinced any anthropogenic changes have occurred or will occur, barring some drastic change in the activities of humans. I chose #2 because I'm not aware of any severe changes in the climate.


I have not really looked into the information on the topic much, though, so if I do at some point, that understanding will likely change
 
Well...it's colder tonight then this afternoon...so the climate has changed.

It's true.
 
The atmosphere of the planet Earth is only 4 miles or less high, for the purposes of human and other organisms. Calculate what the volume and weight of that atmosphere and then consider if 6 or 7 billion polluters on the planet could generate a cause and effect relationship on that atmosphere. There really isn't too much atmosphere to work with. In a fantasy world, we could pretend that we aren't polluting or you can look at the smoker next to you or hold your hand over the end of the tailpipe of a running auto or truck if you want a reality check. Then there is water. Maybe a trip to the huge Ocean "dead zones" could cause a synaptic trigger to initiate a thought that perhaps, collectively, we are rapidly screwing up this planet. I know we personally will be dead before the effects are dramatic, and that would just emphasize our collective lack of responsibility. Like it or lump it, we need to adjust our lifestyles to nearly Amish sensibilities. We must establish a natural relationship with the Planet.

:lamo

It must be so, therefore we must live the Amish? Live like that Amish? HELL NO!

The lower atmosphere is a volume of over 800,000,000 cubic MILES of air. A cubic mile of air is a lot of air.
 
I heard that temperatures have dropped severely up to -50C causing 20 thousand life losses in USA! If it is anthropogenic I think you ought to quite emitting green house gasses for climate is targeting you more than us. To the contrary we are having easier times here. Never seen winters this warm before!
 
On problem I think I see (from many people, whatever they believe about the climate change bit) is this idea that it will cause noticeable changes in temperature as opposed to previous years.

As I understand the idea, it's a much more gradual thing, possibly to such a degree (heh) that it would take a decade or more (even a century?) to change average temperatures noticeably (using "I feel warmer/colder" as a gauge here, not any scientific instrument). Personally, I think a lot (or all?) of the weather people blame on "climate change" these days is actually just natural fluctuations (perhaps with an added pinch of anthro?).
 
:lamo

It must be so, therefore we must live the Amish? Live like that Amish? HELL NO!

The lower atmosphere is a volume of over 800,000,000 cubic MILES of air. A cubic mile of air is a lot of air.

I don't see you suggesting any alternatives. If denial fits you like a glove, wear it proudly. OTOH, some people acknowledge a problem, study the problem and either piss and moan about it, or offer a solution. By the way, how many cubic miles of air do 7 billion humans and many more non-humans breathe annually?
 
Those issues should be pursued on their own merits instead of slapping on the man made global warming issue to it. For example stopping water pollution should be pursued because polluted water is harmful to humans and lifeforms.Slapping the al gore oh my god the world is going to warm is just going to turn people away and make it seem its more about global warming than fighting water pollution.

I've been struggling to come up with a response and all I can think of is what difference does it make? Even if Reagan was dead wrong, although I think he made an excellent point, the net effect of refusing to take any steps toward freeing ourselves of Middle Eastern economic enslavement, geo-political entanglement and our own complicity in efforts to destroy our country by people who hate us so much they're willing to die if they get to kill Americans in the process as all the horrific things advance along because its more important to some that Al Gore and the greenie community be resisted at all costs.

I don't support Cap and Trade or holding America to international standards on co2 emissions from which China is exempted. At the same time I support electric cars, wind and solar electric with the understanding Morse Law and the Silicon Valley Business Model apply that says once on the market, these new innovations will experience rapid technological improvements and deep cost reductions just like digital cameras, cell phones, HDTVs and PCs did. However, as long as we wait around for it to "catch up" while not on the market, it will never develop.

The urgency of self-defensive measures in our post 9/11 wake up call in my opinion trumps the luxury of domestic bickering between ideological camps and also in my humble opinion gives the American and freedom loving people everywhere the imperative to work together at least on the things with which we can agree, despite our differing motives. Remember, people want us dead and we're paying them to finance that objective.

One thing that I find disheartening in contemporary politics is the idea that if some group isn't fully in our ideological camp, the goal isn't to find common ground and at least advance the issues we can come to agreement on but rather our political opposition is "the enemy" (a designation I'd prefer to see reserved for people like Al Qaeda) and any and everything the opposition supports we must utterly oppose including the things we are okay with unless its repackaged as an "our side" agenda item. I don't think Reagan or Clinton had that mentality. A house divided against....
 
Back
Top Bottom