4 ms·

I don't understand why people are still obsessed with "global warming". The political proponents of it have already changed it to "climate change" after global

I don't understand why people are still obsessed with "global warming". The political proponents of it have already changed it to "climate change" after global temperature stopped rising for a decade and it's been almost two decades now. I would be much worried about "global cooling" i.e. another ice age. A couple of degree increase over the next hundred years (which is their worst case estimate based on the most advanced models, even though no model has been able to predict anything, only fit historical data) will change nothing. Sea levels will probably rise by a few feet and people living in their beach houses will have to find another vacation spot in 20 years after they notice that the sea has been coming closer to their house since the last decade. Ice age is just as unpredictable (except they don't even have a make-believe explanation for it) and could start any time giving us very little time to prepare. If we want humans to suffer less because of it, the least we should do is try to give over a billion people who have no access to electricity some way to make sure that they will be able to heat their houses if it's cold, like most of the developed world can... in addition, meanwhile, they can enjoy clean drinking water, washing machines, industries etc.

wellboy 9y ago
Many U.S. coast cities will become submerged when sea-levels rise by several feet. This is not the omly effect, particularly countries in the middle east will dry out, leading rural inhabitants to gravitate towards in excess of their capacities, leading to destabilised countries. This has already happened with Syria and millions if refugees, now wait for the remaining countries to follow with hundreds of millions of refugees in the next 100 years. Naturally, even heavier hurricanes, more devastating floods will happen. Keep in mind, a rise of only 6 degress fahrenheit, means a rise of 20 degrees fahrenheit in some areas and less in others. This is catastrophic for the areas that are among the ones with bad luck and will induce mass migration/fleeing.
citizen13384 9y ago
Source?
tempestn 9y ago
Most of your assertions here are incorrect. You don't need a particularly complex model to show that if more energy is absorbed by the earth than is radiated, which is the case due to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the temperature will rise until it returns to a steady state at a higher temperature. This means that even if CO2 emissions stop immediately (which obviously they won't), the temperature will continue rising for a period of time (some decades). A 2 degree rise is considered to be the absolute limit without likely catastrophic consequences. It is certainly not the worst case. Sea levels could certainly rise by more than you claim, but sea level rise is far from the only problem. See here for instance: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-... If you're being honest about your introduction, that you don't understand why people are concerned about climate change, then that's a start. If you're instead trying to convince people of your point of view, please provide evidence for your assertions.
- anotherbrownguy 9y ago
  >If you're instead trying to convince people of your point of view, please provide evidence for your assertions. That is useless. People follow it like a religion, I am merely trying to have a conversation to few reasonable ones so I can understand their point of view if they have anything interesting to say apart from repeating the same tired tropes. >You don't need a particularly complex model to show that if more energy is absorbed by the earth than is radiated, which is the case due to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the temperature will rise until it returns to a steady state at a higher temperature. Do you have reference to a graph that shows the amount of CO2 in the air vs how much heat is absorbed? Has this been isolated? Can't be that difficult to create a green house and study the relation by varying CO2 concentration. Could it be that the temperature rise is an independent phenomena which is the cause for CO2 rise, not the effect of it? None of the political arguments seem to be questioned ever and no scientific studies seem to come out of it. Given that most research findings are false (http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...), there ought to be some research findings that show evidence against climate hysteria, even if they are wrong, but those don't seem to surface. It is as if any questioning of political propaganda is systematically silenced (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8).
Oletros 9y ago
> The political proponents of it have already changed it to "climate change Taking into account that since the start it has been called climate change, the rest of your post can be dismissed as the same wrong claims

wellboy 9y ago

Many U.S. coast cities will become submerged when sea-levels rise by several feet. This is not the omly effect, particularly countries in the middle east will dry out, leading rural inhabitants to gravitate towards in excess of their capacities, leading to destabilised countries. This has already happened with Syria and millions if refugees, now wait for the remaining countries to follow with hundreds of millions of refugees in the next 100 years. Naturally, even heavier hurricanes, more devastating floods will happen. Keep in mind, a rise of only 6 degress fahrenheit, means a rise of 20 degrees fahrenheit in some areas and less in others. This is catastrophic for the areas that are among the ones with bad luck and will induce mass migration/fleeing.

citizen13384 9y ago

Source?

tempestn 9y ago

Most of your assertions here are incorrect. You don't need a particularly complex model to show that if more energy is absorbed by the earth than is radiated, which is the case due to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the temperature will rise until it returns to a steady state at a higher temperature. This means that even if CO2 emissions stop immediately (which obviously they won't), the temperature will continue rising for a period of time (some decades). A 2 degree rise is considered to be the absolute limit without likely catastrophic consequences. It is certainly not the worst case. Sea levels could certainly rise by more than you claim, but sea level rise is far from the only problem. See here for instance: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-... If you're being honest about your introduction, that you don't understand why people are concerned about climate change, then that's a start. If you're instead trying to convince people of your point of view, please provide evidence for your assertions.

anotherbrownguy 9y ago
>If you're instead trying to convince people of your point of view, please provide evidence for your assertions. That is useless. People follow it like a religion, I am merely trying to have a conversation to few reasonable ones so I can understand their point of view if they have anything interesting to say apart from repeating the same tired tropes. >You don't need a particularly complex model to show that if more energy is absorbed by the earth than is radiated, which is the case due to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the temperature will rise until it returns to a steady state at a higher temperature. Do you have reference to a graph that shows the amount of CO2 in the air vs how much heat is absorbed? Has this been isolated? Can't be that difficult to create a green house and study the relation by varying CO2 concentration. Could it be that the temperature rise is an independent phenomena which is the cause for CO2 rise, not the effect of it? None of the political arguments seem to be questioned ever and no scientific studies seem to come out of it. Given that most research findings are false (http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...), there ought to be some research findings that show evidence against climate hysteria, even if they are wrong, but those don't seem to surface. It is as if any questioning of political propaganda is systematically silenced (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8).

Oletros 9y ago

> The political proponents of it have already changed it to "climate change Taking into account that since the start it has been called climate change, the rest of your post can be dismissed as the same wrong claims