Jump to content


The Environment


Recommended Posts


15 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

So….the things the scientists have done to save the GBR should be ignored and we just label them alarmists because the change in trend would have happened anyway?

So…people were told fossil fuel usage effects were killing the Great Barrier Reef.   And we had to get off fossil fuels or it would be gone in “X number of years (you pick what X is becuae it seems to always change and get moved out in years)”.   By the accounts shared by even you, fossil fuels have nothing to do with the busters issue the GBR is having.   It’s water runoff and nature doing nature things.  So ya….in my view, the we have to get off fossil fuel climate change alarmists are wrong about this.  You are allowed a different view if you want 

 

I’m all for renewable energy that is efficient and makes sense.  If some other energy source gives us the same or better QOL great!!  Just don’t tell me the Earth is beyond the point of no repair if we don’t stop using oil, gas, etc because it’s not.  

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I'm certain everything will be around in 20 years too, near genius

I’m glad we agree on both points.  
 

13 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

'd prefer it if your smug ignorance didn't kill my grandkids. Hope you'll change your mind.

I hope your grandkids live long, happy, successful lives, but if they don’t, it won’t be because I don’t subscribe to the humans are rapidly causing climate change/global warming/global cooling and make the planet uninhabitable nonsense going around. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

So…people were told fossil fuel usage effects were killing the Great Barrier Reef.   And we had to get off fossil fuels or it would be gone in “X number of years (you pick what X is becuae it seems to always change and get moved out in years)”.   By the accounts shared by even you, fossil fuels have nothing to do with the busters issue the GBR is having.   It’s water runoff and nature doing nature things.  So ya….in my view, the we have to get off fossil fuel climate change alarmists are wrong about this.  You are allowed a different view if you want 

Again, you should read the paper (emphasis mine):

Quote

Tropical cyclones, coral predation by crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS), and coral bleaching accounted for 48%, 42%, and 10% of the respective estimated losses, amounting to 3.38% y−1 mortality rate.

Quote

 

Such strategies can, however, only be successful if climatic conditions are stabilized, as losses due to bleaching and cyclones will otherwise increase.


 

Literally the number one reason is not natural runoff and two of the factors are getting worse due to climate change.

 

 

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

So…people were told fossil fuel usage effects were killing the Great Barrier Reef.   And we had to get off fossil fuels or it would be gone in “X number of years (you pick what X is becuae it seems to always change and get moved out in years)”.   By the accounts shared by even you, fossil fuels have nothing to do with the busters issue the GBR is having.   It’s water runoff and nature doing nature things.  So ya….in my view, the we have to get off fossil fuel climate change alarmists are wrong about this.  You are allowed a different view if you want 

 

I’m all for renewable energy that is efficient and makes sense.  If some other energy source gives us the same or better QOL great!!  Just don’t tell me the Earth is beyond the point of no repair if we don’t stop using oil, gas, etc because it’s not.  

You’re reading into it what you want. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Again, you should read the paper (emphasis mine):

Literally the number one reason is not natural runoff and two of the factors are getting worse due to climate change.

 

 

Exactly what I was going to say. The number of tropical cyclones and the amount of bleaching are directly affected by the climate which is directly affected by carbon emissions and ozone depletion. As far as I know, possibly even the number of COTS predators are negatively affected by climate.  Only a simpleton can look at these factors and reduce them to “natural occurances” that ebb and flow with time.


If you don’t believe we are negatively impacting the climate and environment, quite simply you don’t know s#!t and are trusting the wrong sources of information.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I’m glad we agree on both points.  
 

I hope your grandkids live long, happy, successful lives, but if they don’t, it won’t be because I don’t subscribe to the humans are rapidly causing climate change/global warming/global cooling and make the planet uninhabitable nonsense going around. 

 

Why do you think you know more about this subject than the people who study it for a living? 

 

I don't go around telling you how to run your drive-through cattle insemination business. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Why do you think you know more about this subject than the people who study it for a living? 

I don’t.   I listen and read to multiple scientific arguments and base my decision on what makes sense and not alarmism.  you are under the impression that all scientists are in agreement on the level of human cause.   They aren’t.  
 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

 

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I don't go around telling you how to run your drive-through cattle insemination business. 

I’m pretty certain you know I don’t have that type of business as I’ve said multiple times I’m not a business owner.  
 

I will say that ai wouldn’t be ashamed of owning cattle insemination business even though you slyly make fun of them.   Some Pretty wealthy people own that type company not too terribly far from where I live. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

I don’t.   I listen and read to multiple scientific arguments and base my decision on what makes sense and not alarmism.  you are under the impression that all scientists are in agreement on the level of human cause.   They aren’t.  
 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

 

 

The Fraser Institute?  Pretty sure they operate on one metric: does a regulation infringe on someone's ability to make money? 

 

If you listen and read and genuinely seek knowledge, you'd know that science itself rarely advocates for policy, and even the world's more conservative governments have no trouble acknowledging global climate change, a somewhat different argument than what we should do about it. The reality of climate change is not synonymous with eliminating all fossil fuels, ending beef consumption, and turning to socialism. That's just what some people think. Others have outlined (and the Biden plan supports) alternative energy pushes that can be a boon to American corporations and patented technologies. Long term planning with renewable resources and systemic efficiencies would align with smart business interests, not just tree-huggers.  Big Petroleum would disagree for obvious and counter-productive reasons. Chances are you listen to and read scientific arguments they help fund.

 

If you're really playing "gotcha!" here, the "97% of scientists agree" bandied by Obama is no doubt an exaggeration. Follow up research puts the number around 80-90% of scientific consensus. Kinda silly to declare that a victory, but you do have a habit of taking an anomaly and pretending it's incontrovertible evidence. 

  • Plus1 5
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

I don’t.   I listen and read to multiple scientific arguments and base my decision on what makes sense and not alarmism.  you are under the impression that all scientists are in agreement on the level of human cause.   They aren’t.  
 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

 

You just pulled up something to corroborate your own opinion and you didn't even do a simple google search did you?

 

Fraser institute has received funding from the Koch brothers and Exxon, as well as other petroleum and pharma companies. They also have a history of siding with the tobacco industry.

 

Your article's author, Ross McKitrick, is a fellow of Fraser and an Academic Advisor for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who's aim is basically to challenge global climate policy under the guise of helping developing nations.

 

And then there's this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, ZRod said:

You just pulled up something to corroborate your own opinion and you didn't even do a simple google search did you?

 

Fraser institute has received funding from the Koch brothers and Exxon, as well as other petroleum and pharma companies. They also have a history of siding with the tobacco industry.

 

Your article's author, Ross McKitrick, is a fellow of Fraser and an Academic Advisor for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who's aim is basically to challenge global climate policy under the guise of helping developing nations.

 

And then there's this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

 

Wikipedia?!?! :laughpound:laughpoundas a source...??? :funnyhahah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:cheers(I kid of course)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ZRod said:

You just pulled up something to corroborate your own opinion and you didn't even do a simple google search did you?

 

Fraser institute has received funding from the Koch brothers and Exxon, as well as other petroleum and pharma companies. They also have a history of siding with the tobacco industry.

 

Your article's author, Ross McKitrick, is a fellow of Fraser and an Academic Advisor for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who's aim is basically to challenge global climate policy under the guise of helping developing nations.

 

And then there's this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

You did a great job talking through everyone’s background.  But I noticed you skipped over the content and point of the article:dunno

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

If you listen and read and genuinely seek knowledge, you'd know that science itself rarely advocates for policy, and even the world's more conservative governments have no trouble acknowledging global climate change

Climate scientists routinely advocate for policy.   
 

Just to be clear, as you seem to not be understanding, I don’t disagree the climate changes.  Quite the opposite.  

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
  • Create New...