Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Nations ink historic Paris climate deal
Topic Started: Apr 22 2016, 02:59 PM (1,687 Views)
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

Now, enter the room quietly, grab a seat, no chewing gum (!), ...and pay attention to the lecture....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8


Mozart
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

W A Mozart
May 15 2016, 10:48 AM
Scim
May 2 2016, 12:10 PM
W A Mozart
May 2 2016, 09:56 AM
Ya see, many of the scientists are on OUR side of debate. Yup, hard to believe. You spend way too much time in the bunker, get outside and smell the flowers, ...keeps your silly mind from going batty.
I spend plenty of time working with scientists, read a lot of papers, see a lot of conference presentations and spend my days working on satellite measurements of climate change.

The 97% consensus among research papers is solid and the idea that there's a serious scientific debate that global warming is happening and mostly caused by us is a weird fantasy. You think not? Take a good sized, random sample of scientific research and find more than 3-4% of them rejecting it.
You're really not gonna go back to that 97% nonsense, are you? Really?

I thought you were a scientist?

Mozart
Why is it nonsense. There is more data supporting that number than anything you have posted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

W A Mozart
May 16 2016, 08:57 AM
pay attention to the lecture....
Oh boy, a retired geographer thinks the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. Should we take his word for that, or trust 150 years of study based on physics and atmospheric chemistry?

Ideologically based deniers are liars or fools, and increasingly irrelevant.
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

W A Mozart
May 15 2016, 10:48 AM
Scim
May 2 2016, 12:10 PM
W A Mozart
May 2 2016, 09:56 AM
Ya see, many of the scientists are on OUR side of debate. Yup, hard to believe. You spend way too much time in the bunker, get outside and smell the flowers, ...keeps your silly mind from going batty.
I spend plenty of time working with scientists, read a lot of papers, see a lot of conference presentations and spend my days working on satellite measurements of climate change.

The 97% consensus among research papers is solid and the idea that there's a serious scientific debate that global warming is happening and mostly caused by us is a weird fantasy. You think not? Take a good sized, random sample of scientific research and find more than 3-4% of them rejecting it.
You're really not gonna go back to that 97% nonsense, are you? Really?

I thought you were a scientist?

Mozart
Scim reminds me of an advanced mathematics class I was in where all but two of the students thought that the correct answer was determined by democratic process.......... :lol:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scim

W A Mozart
May 15 2016, 10:48 AM
Scim
May 2 2016, 12:10 PM
W A Mozart
May 2 2016, 09:56 AM
Ya see, many of the scientists are on OUR side of debate. Yup, hard to believe. You spend way too much time in the bunker, get outside and smell the flowers, ...keeps your silly mind from going batty.
I spend plenty of time working with scientists, read a lot of papers, see a lot of conference presentations and spend my days working on satellite measurements of climate change.

The 97% consensus among research papers is solid and the idea that there's a serious scientific debate that global warming is happening and mostly caused by us is a weird fantasy. You think not? Take a good sized, random sample of scientific research and find more than 3-4% of them rejecting it.
You're really not gonna go back to that 97% nonsense, are you? Really?

I thought you were a scientist?

Mozart
Take a good sized, random sample of climate science papers and find a chunk of them that reject human-caused global warming.

97% is no surprise for someone who reads a lot of scientific work. It might be for someone who reads a lot of conspiracy blogs or mainstream news.
Edited by Scim, May 16 2016, 09:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

I remember the good old days when we were going to run out of landfill space in a few years.

Said it before, when I see someone advocating population controls/declines I'll know this is serious. Until then, it's just another money grab... one degree in a hundred years... pshaw
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scim

W A Mozart
May 16 2016, 08:57 AM
Now, enter the room quietly, grab a seat, no chewing gum (!), ...and pay attention to the lecture....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8


Mozart
Dr Tim Ball doesn't "believe" in the greenhouse effect even though it's measured at hundreds of places round the world every day and behaves just like physics says.

Dr Tim Ball doesn't believe in measured facts. Do you think he's right?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scim

jake58
May 16 2016, 10:00 PM
I remember the good old days when we were going to run out of landfill space in a few years.

Said it before, when I see someone advocating population controls/declines I'll know this is serious. Until then, it's just another money grab... one degree in a hundred years... pshaw
So you think tens of thousands of climate scientists are involved in an elaborate hoax?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Scim
May 16 2016, 10:04 PM
jake58
May 16 2016, 10:00 PM
I remember the good old days when we were going to run out of landfill space in a few years.

Said it before, when I see someone advocating population controls/declines I'll know this is serious. Until then, it's just another money grab... one degree in a hundred years... pshaw
So you think tens of thousands of climate scientists are involved in an elaborate hoax?
Hoax? Nah... more like job security.
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

Scim
May 16 2016, 10:04 PM
jake58
May 16 2016, 10:00 PM
I remember the good old days when we were going to run out of landfill space in a few years.

Said it before, when I see someone advocating population controls/declines I'll know this is serious. Until then, it's just another money grab... one degree in a hundred years... pshaw
So you think tens of thousands of climate scientists are involved in an elaborate hoax?
No, I think they are over exaggerating the possible outcomes. I find their scenarios as plausible as Soviet crop reports or US deficit forecasts.

And as I mentioned we can solve this little problem with a billion or 2 less inhabitants of the globe. Why is no one advocating for that?
Edited by jake58, May 16 2016, 10:18 PM.
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scim

jake58
May 16 2016, 10:17 PM
Scim
May 16 2016, 10:04 PM
jake58
May 16 2016, 10:00 PM
I remember the good old days when we were going to run out of landfill space in a few years.

Said it before, when I see someone advocating population controls/declines I'll know this is serious. Until then, it's just another money grab... one degree in a hundred years... pshaw
So you think tens of thousands of climate scientists are involved in an elaborate hoax?
No, I think they are over exaggerating the possible outcomes. I find their scenarios as plausible as Soviet crop reports or US deficit forecasts.

And as I mentioned we can solve this little problem with a billion or 2 less inhabitants of the globe. Why is no one advocating for that?
Because it's pretty clear that we can solve the problem by just developing poor countries while switching to less-polluting energy sources.

Fertility is already falling in most countries so the only way to reduce population would be extreme and offensive to human dignity. Most people who want action on climate change support it because they care about people, and aside from a few things that many people tend to support anyway* further birth control isn't needed to tackle climate change. A smaller population would make it easier, but the way to get there is abhorrent and we can tackle climate change anyway. Most of us would say that sacrificing coal company profits is better than sacrificing reproductive rights.

Some groups do push for this though (e.g. the Optimum Population Trust). And the comparison with Soviet crop reports isn't fair, because Soviet crop reports weren't based on physics, satellite measurements and other data that anyone has access to.



*economic growth, availability of contraception, women's rights and education in poor countries all cut fertility. 40 years ago, the average Bangladeshi woman had almost 7 kids. Now they have just over 2. Vietnam, Thailand, Chile, Iran, Russia, Spain are all having too few babies to replace their parents. In many countries population growth is just because medicine makes us live longer, and that's a good thing.
Edited by Scim, May 16 2016, 10:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

Scim
May 16 2016, 10:35 PM
jake58
May 16 2016, 10:17 PM
Scim
May 16 2016, 10:04 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
No, I think they are over exaggerating the possible outcomes. I find their scenarios as plausible as Soviet crop reports or US deficit forecasts.

And as I mentioned we can solve this little problem with a billion or 2 less inhabitants of the globe. Why is no one advocating for that?
Because it's pretty clear that we can solve the problem by just developing poor countries while switching to less-polluting energy sources. support anyway* further birth control isn't needed to tackle climate change. A smaller population would make it easier, but the way to get there is abhorrent and we can tackle climate change anyway. Most of us would say that sacrificing coal company profits is better than sacrificing reproductive rights.


Fertility is already falling in most countries so the only way to reduce population would be extreme and offensive to human dignity. Most people who want action on climate change support it because they care about people, and aside from a few things that many people tend to
Some groups do push for this though (e.g. the Optimum Population Trust). And the comparison with Soviet crop reports isn't fair, because Soviet crop reports weren't based on physics, satellite measurements and other data that anyone has access to.



*economic growth, availability of contraception, women's rights and education in poor countries all cut fertility. 40 years ago, the average Bangladeshi woman had almost 7 kids. Now they have just over 2. Vietnam, Thailand, Chile, Iran, Russia, Spain are all having too few babies to replace their parents. In many countries population growth is just because medicine makes us live longer, and that's a good thing.
No, it's not really clear... it's what the do gooders think should be done, 'cos 'morality.'

You'd like to sacrifice coal company profits but apparently make no allowance for the tens of thousands of families who depend on coal to feed their families in the poorest section of our country. They don't really see it like you do. They'd like their jobs and the ability to make a living, some of them have even been to the inner cities and seen the 'success' of govt in areas where industry has left - an infantilized population with a sense of entitlement and no sense of how to earn a crust.

China had mandated population controls for a generation. It certainly can be done, personal opinion can differ on whether the word 'abhorrent' applies.

We still have a massive demographic problem in Africa and areas of the Middle East and SE Asia, where poor families seem to procreate in order to have an alternative to turkey around the holidays. Poor people should not be having masses of babies that they can't provide for - that's not even about economic and climatological realities, that's just common sense. If Bangladesh can do it via a govt program, so can Niger and Mali.
Edited by jake58, May 16 2016, 11:12 PM.
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

France already did their part for the environment by destroying their economy.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com FOREIGN* & DEFENSE · Next Topic »
Add Reply