For The Deniers

[HumblePi]

Facts aren't universal truths, nor are they proofs. Facts are shorthand predicate accepted by all participants of any particular conversation. That's all facts are. Facts can be wrong and still be facts. "God exists" may or may not be a fact, depending upon the participants in the particular discussion at hand... Facts are used to speed up conversation.

There is nothing scientific about global warming. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Global Warming isn't falsifiable. It isn't even definable in a way which isn't a circular definition... It is a buzzword, and a religion based on a void argument.

Global Warming proponents are the real "science deniers" because they deny various laws of science, including the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzman law...

Facts are not merely claims that can be proven true or false. Most dictionaries proclaim that in order for an assertion to be a fact, it must be true. Denying climate changes will end with one of two things. Deniers will feel vindicated if in 20 years the earth remains as it is today, nothing has changed. Conversely, if the deniers are wrong about climate change, the earth will be immersed in a condition in which there will be no turning back from. In the scientific community, there is little dissent among 97% of climate scientists who conclude that humans are causing global warming. Climate models have done very well in projecting long-term global surface temperature changes.

When faced with a potentially catastrophic outcome for something as important as the global climate, it's a no-brainer to take action to make sure we avoid that possible outcome. We still have time to avoid a catastrophic outcome. The more emissions reductions we can achieve, the less the impacts of climate change will be.

 

[uptower]

Don't know about what the right has said, but the left has constantly lied about man made global warming.

That is exactly what the right has said.

 

[MSgt]

Absolute morons.

 

[HumblePi]

How do you know it's "human-made"?


There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas"... A colder gas cannot heat a warmer surface. That is attempting to make heat flow backwards, which is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics...


No one uses fossils for fuel... They don't burn very well...


We need to eat.


So are you proposing a ban on beef consumption? That'll help out all of the starving people in this world HOW exactly?

CO2 isn't a problem... Global Warming is merely a buzzword... Much of the data presented for global warming is just a bunch of random numbers cooked by the religious practitioners of global warming...

1. Humans always leave a fingerprint and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and on the Earth’s surface. Humans are putting too much carbon in the atmosphere, like when we choose to extract and burn coal, oil, and gas, or cut down and burn forests. This is direct evidence of human contribution to atmospheric CO2

2. Greenhouse gases. I assume you have been inside an actual greenhouse, right? Solar energy is absorbed at glass surface and is radiated back into the atmosphere of the greenhouse as heat. With greenhouse gas, the heat makes its way through the atmosphere and back out to space, greenhouse gases absorb much of it. Most human activity emits greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Most emissions associated with energy use result when fossil fuels are burned. Extracting, processing, transporting, and distributing fossil fuels also releases greenhouse gases. Deforestation is the second largest source of carbon dioxide. Domesticated animals emit methane. Fertilizer use increases nitrous oxide emissions.

3. You claim that "no one uses fossils for fuel, they don't burn very well" yet you drive a car, right? You may even heat your home with fuel oil. Fossil fuels like oil and natural gas power industry and manufacturing, and provide us with electricity.

4. There are ways to control the amount of methane from animal waste and some of these ways are very simple. At the heart of methane production is the microbes that reside within the 'rumen' or stomach of cattle. Diet can be used to alter microbial populations in the rumen and in turn increase animal performance and reduce methane emissions. Dietary factors such as type of carbohydrate, fat inclusion, processing of forages and level of feed intake has been shown to influence methane emission in cattle. Incorporating carbohydrates in a cattle diet, increasing feed intake, processing forages and offering a diet that includes unsaturated fat. Each of these factors has been shown to improve feed efficiency and reduce methane production.

Be comforted, you will still be able to enjoy your BBQ or McDonald's burger.

 

[Waddy]

The free range thing is true, but a lot of people do their research (like myself) and know which fruits and vegetables you actually need/want to be organic. Factory farming is the single biggest cause of humanity's contribution to climate change, so I choose to be vegan. The chemicals that can be found in our food and water are pretty alarming. We're all guinea pigs for the world's most massive and destructive corporations, whether it's LED light bulbs or genetically modified food. We'd fight it, but they control the government, so it's one of those things.

You are correct. But fail to see the big picture. Farmland is a limited resource. Just about all arable land is already under cultivation. That makes factory farming a necessity. How else can you feed 8 billion people? They can't all eat "organic". So we've learned to increase yield (which is what "factory farming" really does) by adding chemical fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides. Across the globe soils are worn out. Without these modern methods yields would plummet. And what happens is that we can now grow much larger produce but that produce does not take up more nutrients from the soil, partly because the new strains aren't bred for that and the soil is deficient. So great yields but empty calories. For example, collard greens now contain 80% less vitamins per LB than they did in 1945.

In fact, what you consider "organic" to mean is probably far from what you're eating. "Certified Organic" are still modern strains of engineered plant, still can use modern fertilizers, and certain pesticides. It is NOT some kind of old fashioned "heritage" plant that has only manure for fertilizer and no pesticides whatever; unless you buy from a small local source that you can count on. And you still have the "empty calorie" problem. Life just isn't that simple.

Yet another study concluded that one would have to eat eight oranges today to derive the same amount of Vitamin A as our grandparents would have gotten from one.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/

 

[Bodi]

Prove it.

Not interested in "proving" something that obvious...

 

[The Mark]

OK, let's try to be objective.

Green energy also gets subsidies. The subsidy for buying a green car, for example, can be thousands of dollars. My utility and my state subsidize solar panels, solar hot water, and lighting. Insulation improvements have been subsidized in the past, and no interest loans for these things offered by the state. Green gets it's share of subsidies.

Do you know fossil energy producers on government land and offshore pay substantial royalties for the privilege? Last time I checked it was something like the third largest source of income for state and federal coffers.

But yes, it would be nice to see everything, everywhere, on a level playing field. So let's eliminate ALL subsidies and see how it goes.

How much of a percentage reduction in CO2 would there be if ALL US cars were electric? I honestly don't know that answer, but Australia estimates it would only be a 4% reduction there.

The big picture looks kinda bleak, though. About every 30 years the economy doubles. The US population will hit 400 million in a few years. Billions of people around the globe have been lifted out of poverty; they all want the typical American lifestyle, new cars, air conditioning, meat at every meal, health care, new clothes, and everything else that goes with it. IMO, we will need every kind of energy we can produce, whether fossil or green, just to keep up. The ONLY thing that will save our planet in the long run is population control and getting off the "growth" model as being the only way to measure economic success. If we don't control population and adopt a sustainable economic system the planet will be fine; but we humans will be back in the Dark Ages.

I am aware green options have been subsidized, and may continue to be.

But not as much as fossil fuels are, I think.

 

[The Mark]

Not interested in "proving" something that obvious...

It's not obvious, or I wouldn't have asked you to prove it.

 

[Born Free]

The earth is constantly changing, it's had ice ages and who really knows how many. If the earth was cooling would anyone be alarmed? People have adapted, why because we can adapt. If the earth is warming, so what? Can we not adapt. If the earth was cooling, would you recommend we burn all the coal, oil, timber we can find? This whole global warming issue to me is overblown and we're spending billions to control something that is really out of our control. We don't control the world.

 

[Mustachio]

In fact, what you consider "organic" to mean is probably far from what you're eating. "Certified Organic" are still modern strains of engineered plant, still can use modern fertilizers, and certain pesticides. It is NOT some kind of old fashioned "heritage" plant that has only manure for fertilizer and no pesticides whatever; unless you buy from a small local source that you can count on. And you still have the "empty calorie" problem. Life just isn't that simple.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/

Useful information for people to consider. However, I do buy my organic produce exclusively from a small co-op and everything else from Target (which I hate).

 

[gfm7175]

Facts are not merely claims that can be proven true or false.

Correct. Facts, rather, are shorthand predicate accepted by all involved parties as true. Facts may or may not be provable. They may or may not be correct/true. Depends on who's involved in the conversation...

Most dictionaries proclaim that in order for an assertion to be a fact, it must be true.

Then most dictionaries are wrong.

Denying climate changes will end with one of two things. Deniers will feel vindicated if in 20 years the earth remains as it is today, nothing has changed. Conversely, if the deniers are wrong about climate change, the earth will be immersed in a condition in which there will be no turning back from.

False dichotomy...

In the scientific community,

Science doesn't consist of a "community"...

there is little dissent among 97% of climate scientists who conclude that humans are causing global warming.

Argument by random numbers... Appeal to Authority fallacy...

Climate models have done very well in projecting long-term global surface temperature changes.

Global surface temperature can't be measured... How many thermometers does one use? At what locations?

When faced with a potentially catastrophic outcome for something as important as the global climate, it's a no-brainer to take action to make sure we avoid that possible outcome.

You haven't even defined (in a non-circular way) what climate change is, yet you're going to "take action"? That doesn't make any sense... I'm not joining this Marxist buzzword-based religion... It outright denies science numerous times...

We still have time to avoid a catastrophic outcome.

There is no "catastrophic outcome" due to whatever magic gas(es) which are supposedly warming up Earth [even though that idea outright denies current scientific laws]

The more emissions reductions we can achieve, the less the impacts of climate change will be.

No magic gas is warming the Earth... That idea outright denies science.

I'm not falling for this Marxist fueled agenda...

 

[HumblePi]

Correct. Facts, rather, are shorthand predicate accepted by all involved parties as true. Facts may or may not be provable. They may or may not be correct/true. Depends on who's involved in the conversation...


Then most dictionaries are wrong.


False dichotomy...


Science doesn't consist of a "community"...


Argument by random numbers... Appeal to Authority fallacy...


Global surface temperature can't be measured... How many thermometers does one use? At what locations?


You haven't even defined (in a non-circular way) what climate change is, yet you're going to "take action"? That doesn't make any sense... I'm not joining this Marxist buzzword-based religion... It outright denies science numerous times...


There is no "catastrophic outcome" due to whatever magic gas(es) which are supposedly warming up Earth [even though that idea outright denies current scientific laws]


No magic gas is warming the Earth... That idea outright denies science.

I'm not falling for this Marxist fueled agenda...

Denying climate change is delusional and it may in fact be the biggest threat to human survival.

Ask yourself "What if we're wrong, what are the consequences of our stubborn denials about the effects man has on climate change and global warming?" "How will the planet be better if we continue on this path?"

What do you gain by denying climate change and what do you lose if you accept it as factual?

 

[American]

nobody said anything about fixing it

or.paying.for.it

just believing man is a big part of

if the reports of.the impact are correct its going.to cost.plenty

This is where Gore at made millions without lowering anything. Yup, the crooks will develop some fiat system to get rich.

 

[winnie]

I do believe we have been lied to about GW in that data has been manipulated and misused, but I voted No because I didn't think it was the 'right' doing the lying.

 

[gfm7175]

1. Humans always leave a fingerprint and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and on the Earth’s surface. Humans are putting too much carbon in the atmosphere, like when we choose to extract and burn coal, oil, and gas, or cut down and burn forests. This is direct evidence of human contribution to atmospheric CO2

Atmospheric CO2 is not an issue... It can't warm the Earth... A colder gas cannot heat a warmer surface; that attempts to make heat flow backwards and denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics...

2. Greenhouse gases. I assume you have been inside an actual greenhouse, right?

I sure have.

Solar energy is absorbed at glass surface and is radiated back into the atmosphere of the greenhouse as heat.

Okay.

With greenhouse gas, the heat makes its way through the atmosphere and back out to space, greenhouse gases absorb much of it.

Gases absorb a small amount, yes, but not nearly what you think they do.

Most human activity emits greenhouse gas.

There is no such thing as "greenhouse gas"...

Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels

Nobody burns fossils for fuel... They don't burn very well...

is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.

There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas"...

Most emissions associated with energy use result when fossil fuels are burned. Extracting, processing, transporting, and distributing fossil fuels also releases greenhouse gases.

Nobody burns fossils for fuel... There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas"...

Deforestation is the second largest source of carbon dioxide.

Trees are farmed... Our forests are just fine...

Domesticated animals emit methane. Fertilizer use increases nitrous oxide emissions.

Are people and animals supposed to hold in their farts? This is ridiculous...

3. You claim that "no one uses fossils for fuel, they don't burn very well" yet you drive a car, right?

Correct, nobody uses fossils for fuel. Yes, I drive a gasoline powered vehicle.

You may even heat your home with fuel oil.

Yes, I heat my home with natural gas. I also heat it with firewood during the winter.

Fossil fuels like oil and natural gas power industry and manufacturing, and provide us with electricity.

There is no such thing as a "fossil fuel"... fossils don't burn... I do make use of oil and natural gas though, and yes, they power industry and are used for electricity and etc...

4. There are ways to control the amount of methane from animal waste and some of these ways are very simple. At the heart of methane production is the microbes that reside within the 'rumen' or stomach of cattle. Diet can be used to alter microbial populations in the rumen and in turn increase animal performance and reduce methane emissions. Dietary factors such as type of carbohydrate, fat inclusion, processing of forages and level of feed intake has been shown to influence methane emission in cattle. Incorporating carbohydrates in a cattle diet, increasing feed intake, processing forages and offering a diet that includes unsaturated fat. Each of these factors has been shown to improve feed efficiency and reduce methane production.

Be comforted, you will still be able to enjoy your BBQ or McDonald's burger.

YAYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[HumblePi]

Atmospheric CO2 is not an issue... It can't warm the Earth... A colder gas cannot heat a warmer surface; that attempts to make heat flow backwards and denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics...


I sure have.


Okay.


Gases absorb a small amount, yes, but not nearly what you think they do.


There is no such thing as "greenhouse gas"...


Nobody burns fossils for fuel... They don't burn very well...


There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas"...


Nobody burns fossils for fuel... There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas"...


Trees are farmed... Our forests are just fine...


Are people and animals supposed to hold in their farts? This is ridiculous...


Correct, nobody uses fossils for fuel. Yes, I drive a gasoline powered vehicle.


Yes, I heat my home with natural gas. I also heat it with firewood during the winter.


There is no such thing as a "fossil fuel"... fossils don't burn... I do make use of oil and natural gas though, and yes, they power industry and are used for electricity and etc...



YAYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!

DUH! just.......DUH!

you have no idea at all what you're talking about. OXYGEN IS NOT CARBON MONOXIDE! The rest of your comment is worthless, pointless, and without any logical value so I won't waste another SECOND of my life on you or your maniacal ramblings.

 

[Manc Skipper]

talk about stuck on stupid!

Self awareness is your first step to mental health.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

nobody said anything about fixing it

or.paying.for.it

just believing man is a big part of

if the reports of.the impact are correct its going.to cost.plenty

Ever hear the story of the boy who cried wolf too often?

 

[Bodi]

The earth is constantly changing, it's had ice ages and who really knows how many. If the earth was cooling would anyone be alarmed? People have adapted, why because we can adapt. If the earth is warming, so what? Can we not adapt. If the earth was cooling, would you recommend we burn all the coal, oil, timber we can find? This whole global warming issue to me is overblown and we're spending billions to control something that is really out of our control. We don't control the world.

Ice Ages are a conspiracy from the Right intent on duping the public into natural cooling and warming periods so the people do not become alarmed with the catastrophe that is shaping up due to man made global warming.

 

[Born Free]

Ice Ages are a conspiracy from the Right

I see you don't believe there ever was an ice age.

intent on duping the public into natural cooling and warming periods so the people do not become alarmed with the catastrophe that is shaping up due to man made global warming.

That's a new one, "catastrophe" man made global warming. Not only do you not believe there was ever an ice age, but your also not able to adapt to a degree or two of warming. You must live in a controlled environment that prohibits the sun to shine on you and you have to have a constant temperature, or you die.

 

[Bodi]

I see you don't believe there ever was an ice age.

intent on duping the public into natural cooling and warming periods so the people do not become alarmed with the catastrophe that is shaping up due to man made global warming.

That's a new one, "catastrophe" man made global warming. Not only do you not believe there was ever an ice age, but your also not able to adapt to a degree or two of warming. You must live in a controlled environment that prohibits the sun to shine on you and you have to have a constant temperature, or you die.

I live in sunny New Zealand and I have no idea how an Ice Age Conspiracy has anything to do with me living in the modern age... please explain.

 

[Eriech]

I live in sunny New Zealand and I have no idea how an Ice Age Conspiracy has anything to do with me living in the modern age... please explain.

Sauron is responsible for warming the Kiwis........

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[99percenter]

Why is global warming a political thing? It should be about the science. I don't see very many conservatives say evolution is false and most of them have accepted the science but when it comes to global warming they refuse to believe it.

 

[Quaestio]

Don't know about what the right has said, but the left has constantly lied about man made global warming.

https://www.academia.org/the-top-10-global-warming-lies-of-the-left/

Your gullibility makes it very easy for the 'right' to lie to you.

 

[Quaestio]

Facts aren't universal truths, nor are they proofs. Facts are shorthand predicate accepted by all participants of any particular conversation. That's all facts are. Facts can be wrong and still be facts. "God exists" may or may not be a fact, depending upon the participants in the particular discussion at hand... Facts are used to speed up conversation.

There is nothing scientific about global warming. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Global Warming isn't falsifiable. It isn't even definable in a way which isn't a circular definition... It is a buzzword, and a religion based on a void argument.

Global Warming proponents are the real "science deniers" because they deny various laws of science, including the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzman law...

Your post is nothing but buzzwords and nonsense. I suspect you also believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old.