General / Off-Topic Sorry From America....Earth (Let's keep this one friendly guys)

[Talarin]

Let's NOT go with a political opinion about a scientific matter. It's NOT political.

If it were political, the argument is well and truly over: the Paris Accord shows us clearly that pretty much ONLY the Republican Party is left standing opposed to the idea.

Actually, if the scientific argument is well and truly over (which it's not, by the way), then actually the discussion should be about engineering and economics. Oddly enough, exactly the grounds Trump gave for withdrawing from the Paris agreement.

 

[lysan]

Actually, if the scientific argument is well and truly over (which it's not, by the way), then actually the discussion should be about engineering and economics. Oddly enough, exactly the grounds Trump gave for withdrawing from the Paris agreement.

True it's not a political subject, and therefor we need to stick to data collected related to the climate, and not mix it with all kinds of different topics.

Is the Earth heating up due to humans or not, is it catastrophic or not.

We can argue all day long, but to me it's clear that there also is an agenda behind some of the groups pushing for the CO2 is killing the Earth, we will all die in huge title waves and the polar bear puppies will drown in 2 years if we don't sign the Paris agreement.

What we should do is try to find alternative energy sources, and changes our lifestyle as cow farts are also damaging the Earth a whole lot more than most people believe. Massive forests are cut to give land for the cattle to grass on, so think about that before you look for the cheapest piece of meat in the supermarket. Buy organic food instead of industrialized mass produced food, that would have a much larger impact on the environment if we all did just that.

 

[Talarin]

True it's not a political subject, and therefor we need to stick to data collected related to the climate, and not mix it with all kinds of different topics.

Is the Earth heating up due to humans or not, is it catastrophic or not.

...

We can argue all day long, but to me it's clear that there also is an agenda behind some of the groups pushing for the CO2 is killing the Earth, we will all die in huge title waves and the polar bear puppies will drown in 2 years if we don't sign the Paris agreement.

What we should do is try to find alternative energy sources, and changes our lifestyle as cow farts are also damaging the Earth a whole lot more than most people believe. Massive forests are cut to give land for the cattle to grass on, so think about that before you look for the cheapest piece of meat in the supermarket. Buy organic food instead of industrialized mass produced food, that would have a much larger impact on the environment if we all did just that.

Although I'm the first to point out that the state of the science, it's associated uncertainties and policy implications are generally poorly understood by the public; I think the suggestion of an agenda beyond the obvious (we need to protect the climate) is a little too strong. What a lot of the discussion has, at least in my opinion, is a complete lack of perspective when it comes to CO2 emissions.

Your example is a great one - land use changes/deforestation. It has vastly more practical implications for own our species as well as others. It, without any question, has vastly more impact on the environment than CO2 emissions - which require extensive data analysis to derive a man-made signal from - yet we don't seem to want to invest the time and money into combating it to the same degree.

Why not?

 

[lysan]

Although I'm the first to point out that the state of the science, it's associated uncertainties and policy implications are generally poorly understood by the public; I think the suggestion of an agenda beyond the obvious (we need to protect the climate) is a little too strong. What a lot of the discussion has, at least in my opinion, is a complete lack of perspective when it comes to CO2 emissions.

Your example is a great one - land use changes/deforestation. It has vastly more practical implications for own our species as well as others. It, without any question, has vastly more impact on the environment than CO2 emissions - which require extensive data analysis to derive a man-made signal from - yet we don't seem to want to invest the time and money into combating it to the same degree.

Why not?

Because many, not all, of those claiming to want to save the enviroment ain't doing anything actively other than telling others how to live their lives.

Did you check how your food is made, did you check what impact the product you just aquired had on the climate, or did you just run into the first 1 EURO store to buy whatever?

How do you power your house, what foot print are YOU leaving on the Earth? regarding pollution?

My house is producing all the energy used by those who live there, me and my wife, dogs and when there is food on the table the kids suddenly show up! I clean the water and separate it into black and grey water used to flush the toilets or water some plants.

We leave a very little footprint on the earth that's for sure, but here I am, a gun toting crazy looney who need to be restrained and locked up asap

 

[Minonian]

Oh BTW? Ladies?

Your best interests to stop trollmpfh and all of the other nature killers. Remember?

Spoiler

[video=youtube;PqFGwmAUm2k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqFGwmAUm2k[/video]

Who suffers it worst?

And also? please by all means! Go against nature, and pick up the worst as mate, neglect the real deal and suffer the consequences, when you take a moron like him, or a violent animal as a pair, and break the best.
You can't be the best by keeping the other down but you can cause an immerse amount of harm.

 

[Quantis Trap]

d

I'm sorry Mother Earth....I'm so so so sorry.

Here you are, providing us a place to live, food to survive and beauty to behold and all we do is use up your resources and overpopulate and destroy.

There was a shining light ahead of use, it looked like people were starting to come around and then an orange skinned man with no values and no knowledge comes in and destroys the one thing the world had come to an agreement on.

Why, because he thinks we will lose jobs, he thinks that a couple of degrees won't change a thing, he thinks we need to focus on America only.

While America is important, if we are ever going to make a life amongst the stars we need to start thinking globally, we need to realize that it's not us against them but the earth and all it encompasses against the harshness of the Universe.

Jobs, you may lose some in the oil, gas and what but those would be made up by commission new renewable energy sources like wind farms, solar farms. Technology of the future will be geared towards this clean, green ways and new jobs will come from that. Less pollution in the climate means healthier lives for Americans and the rest of the world. Most importantly if we had stayed in this pact we would have shown those in the world who are already doubting us and ready to kick us to the curb that we aren't completely a trashed country. But nope, due to his arrogance and misunderstandings and pockets being lined by oil companies now we just alienate more of the world.

There is a difference in being a good parent and teaching your kid the right way to grow up and then there is the parent who is so strict and tries so hard to protect that they harm instead. They don't allow growth and stifle anything that might put themselves at risk. The greater good is really a veiled, i need things to be easy for me.

A few degrees, though not much is a start, of course we aren't going to solve the problem right away and that is what turns some people off. If it isn't affecting them now, or personally it doesn't matter. This is where people are wrong, we are reaching a tipping point and this action will only cause us to get there faster, once we get there there is no going back and only then will people understand, sadly it'll be too late.

I'm ashamed to be an American today. We've taken ourselves out of the picture and have shown the world that we truly don't care about this planet.

I'm sorry Earth! I will do what I can to help but it's going to take all of us now, all the business and energy corporations to do what our president should have done....wait, other people's president, because he sure as hell ain't mine!

Thank you to all the other countries out there who are willing to keep in this pact and make a bright future for us.

This poor, mislead, unappointed representative does not speak for the majority of Americans and certainly not for me.

I don't usually take the bate, but this time I'll make an exception. I find it ironic and comical that this troll posts this nonsense while telling others to be friendly!

 

[CMDR MadRaptor]

d

This poor, mislead, unappointed representative does not speak for the majority of Americans and certainly not for me.

I don't usually take the bate, but this time I'll make an exception. I find it ironic and comical that this troll posts this nonsense while telling others to be friendly!

I don't speak for everybody, I only speak for myself, however my sentiments I feel the majority of the US actually agrees with. My post, how is it not friendly. I'm not accusing any forum goers of doing anything wrong, not calling out names and not being disrespectful. The only person I may be disrespecting is Trump but, does that even matter.

No, the amount of outcry from this decision shows that I'm not the only one. And if you think different. So be it. That is your right. Just like it is/was my right to think differently and post it here. Why I say be nice is because if we get too crazy this thread will just be locked. We don't need that we can be civil and have a good discussion without reverting to name calling and bashing.

Now as for your comments:

How am I misled?
How is this post being Ironic?

Again, I have not nor will I bash anybody on these forums for speaking their mind. I love debates and welcome anybody of a differing view to provide their facts and make their case. I will listen and concede if/when necessary.

The only one I openly bash is Trump, I'm okay if you are upset about that aspect. As for my speak, yes my wording makes it seem like I'm saying all when I mean just myself but again, I'm pretty sure there is a good majority who feels the same way.

 

[Robin of Spiritwood]

This poor, mislead, unappointed representative does not speak for the majority of Americans and certainly not for me!

www.politico.com/story/2017/06/05/poll-americans-oppose-paris-exit-239150
About 60 % ? That's a majority.
Trump has 28% support within America, and just about ZERO from the rest of the planet.

You are in a tiny tiny tiny tribe.
It's shrinking everyday, as the Fox News audience (average age 71) dies off.

 

[lysan]

www.politico.com/story/2017/06/05/poll-americans-oppose-paris-exit-239150
About 60 % ? That's a majority.
Trump has 28% support within America, and just about ZERO from the rest of the planet.

You are in a tiny tiny tiny tribe.
It's shrinking everyday, as the Fox News audience (average age 71) dies off.

Me thinks these numbers are a bit biased politico a 100% liberal organ, I see stickers all over the place supporting the POTUS.
However if you got this flood wave of support, you will see it in the 2018 elections right so let's just wait and see.

 

[Robin of Spiritwood]

It's a poll, not an opinion. Also, if Politico is opposed to the President, why are there stickers supporting him? It seems odd.

Moreover, the numbers pertain only to the Paris Accord Exit.
So we cannot extrapolate voting patterns from just one issue.

In any case, support for Trump isn't conditional. It's largely irrational, and won't move no matter what he does. His supporters adopt whatever new Trump fail takes place, and normalize it.

Edit: this article outlines what I am about to describe.
www.slate.com/articles/health_and_s...s_are_bigger_even_when_looking_at_photos.html


Eg:
You can see that when women responded to the Billy Bush tape by wearing TShirts asking Trump to "grope me too".
Today, Dan Rivkin appeared on TV to assert that it would be "perfectly normal" for a President to influence or outright stop FBI investigations.
When Spicer claimed that the inauguration photos showed more people for Trump, a study demonstrated that 70% of Trump supporters switched from the obvious answer to the Trumpian one.
You might recall the mass conversion that took place away from "Bush kept us safe" ?
Or the recent shift to demonize Sadiq Khan?

So it's rather dubious that there will be ANY shift in the cadre of people that support Trump. No matter what. He could marry a goat as his second wife, take it put on State Visits to represent his country, and it would be rapidly normalized by the tribal support base.
This is how demagoguery works. It's not new. It's taking place for hundreds of fake "gurus" in India right now.

 

[Minonian]

Usual trollish behavior. Kill em with fire. That's all you can do.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Because many, not all, of those claiming to want to save the enviroment ain't doing anything actively other than telling others how to live their lives.

Did you check how your food is made, did you check what impact the product you just aquired had on the climate, or did you just run into the first 1 EURO store to buy whatever?

Yes. That's how it should work.

There are a lot of graphs and charts posted in this thread. I know we've got at least two engineers here (I am one), an amateur epidemiologist, an economist, an accountant, a biologist, a scientist, a "gardener" of "suspicious substances", a handful of people currently out of work who haven't revealed their in work professions, and a moderator who takes the blame for everything.

Do we actually have any climatologists, whether professional or amateur, who understands the subject? At least enough to say whether it is happening one way or another? Perhaps, but nobody in this thread has given me that impression.

What we instead have is an overwhelming consensus by climatologists working out there today that global warming is happening and CO2 is responsible. We have to take them at their word, because that's the way the world works - you can't learn about everything and sometimes you need to just trust the experts.

Now we've established that we should do something that requires getting the population to adjust their behaviour accordingly. That means laws and regulations to nudge them in a certain direction. That's how society works.

 

[Talarin]

Do we actually have any climatologists, whether professional or amateur, who understands the subject? At least enough to say whether it is happening one way or another? Perhaps, but nobody in this thread has given me that impression.

I'm a physics graduate. I'm relatively conversant with the science - enough to be able to cite current (as in this year) scientific papers of relevance in the field (but admittedly far from exhaustively). I've read the IPCC reports (AR4 and AR5 in full) and understand the range of certainties they express. I have a personal opinion which falls well into the range of those certainties and some of the more current papers.

And yet according to you, I'm a science denier because I don't subscribe to the "end is coming" nonsense typified to by the reaction to Trump withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and argue against the policies we've enacted.

What we instead have is an overwhelming consensus by climatologists working out there today that global warming is happening and CO2 is responsible. We have to take them at their word, because that's the way the world works - you can't learn about everything and sometimes you need to just trust the experts.

Now we've established that we should do something that requires getting the population to adjust their behaviour accordingly. That means laws and regulations to nudge them in a certain direction. That's how society works.

The consensus isn't what you seem to think it is. In fact, it doesn't extend much further past a) the earth's climate is changing and b) mankind (and note, that isn't restricted to CO2 emissions) is responsible for at least half of that change. It certainly doesn't extend to a scientific requirement for the Paris agreement and the science, as we know it now, doesn't say that CO2 emissions reduction is the environmental panacea to extreme weather, sea level rise, habitat loss etc that much of the media likes to imply are related.

It's entirely appropriate to debate the potential impacts and proposed solutions in the public discourse. These things should be quantified and any benefits measurable. Attempting to shut down that discourse should be vigorously opposed - that's how democracies work.

 

[lysan]

Yes. That's how it should work.

There are a lot of graphs and charts posted in this thread. I know we've got at least two engineers here (I am one), an amateur epidemiologist, an economist, an accountant, a biologist, a scientist, a "gardener" of "suspicious substances", a handful of people currently out of work who haven't revealed their in work professions, and a moderator who takes the blame for everything.

Do we actually have any climatologists, whether professional or amateur, who understands the subject? At least enough to say whether it is happening one way or another? Perhaps, but nobody in this thread has given me that impression.

What we instead have is an overwhelming consensus by climatologists working out there today that global warming is happening and CO2 is responsible. We have to take them at their word, because that's the way the world works - you can't learn about everything and sometimes you need to just trust the experts.

Now we've established that we should do something that requires getting the population to adjust their behaviour accordingly. That means laws and regulations to nudge them in a certain direction. That's how society works.

I'm an engineer, however regarding the climate it is just my opinion.
but I have engineered my house to be zero impacting the environment, so there you have it.

 

[Hooplah]

A reply after I promoted Morris on a website looking at the political view of Global Warming.

No.

Let's NOT go with a political opinion about a scientific matter. It's NOT political.

If it were political, the argument is well and truly over: the Paris Accord shows us clearly that pretty much ONLY the Republican Party is left standing opposed to the idea.

Everybody else on the planet has figured it out.

First up it is extremely political given the nations and their politicians discussing what to do about it. Even in the USA the Democrats are using this issue to generate votes and put down anyone who thinks that Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord was a viable consideration. Here is one of many examples:

"How is President Trump going to ever explain this to his children and his grandchildren that he didn't care about the air they breathe, the water they drink or how that works? I think that children know more about this subject than some of the people advising the President."

Nancy Pelosi - (D)California - House Minority Leader on an episode of "the View".

But they do not discuss the problems with the Accord per the USA spending up to a trillion dollars and at the same time reducing USA emissions while nations like India and China (who is building another 350 coal power plants) couldn't care less and do what they want to the year 2030. Nor do they discuss what the USA is going to do about emissions after leaving the Accord. President Trump also left the door open to negoitate the Paris Climate Accord which most USA news media (they hate Trump) won't talk about or the nations even bother to discuss. Why? Because (1) many fear Trump and want him to fail. Given that he is not a politician and loves to Tweet I can totally understand their concerns, (2) they want the money and (3) won't get serious about Global Warming until they have no other choice.

The USA under Trump's administration will continue with lowering emissions, investing in green technology solutions both with college and scientific grants as well as in our current industrial technologies that are working. We will also take advantage of our opportunities with frac drilling, coal and our massive resources of natural gas. Yes, thet does make America less dependent on global energy resources and provides many jobs for our citizens. We are NOT going back to the 1950s as some politicians would like to promote out of fear. We have improved the technology where as one example we can seriously minimize the carbon dioxide emissions of coal into the air and eventually the oceans that did not exist in the past decades.

Still the news media keeps asking Trump if Global Warming is a hoax. It is a 'trap question" politically where if he answers YES or NO the Democrats and the news media will run with it either way to exploit his response to gain votes for the next election. If yes they will pull out all the stops and have a field day with it to strengthen their voter base. If no they figure to get a few Republicans on their side. This is a news media who cares more about reporting trivial moments as in Melania not holding hands versus a major European tour and how the world has changed for better or worse as a result. You do the math.

Trump leaving the Accord is NOT about Global Warming. It is about paying the bill for everyone else with little or no results and the funds not even being used for the intended purpose. The USA will continue to be the world leader in reducing emissions. The nations actually interested in doing something about it will be welcomed and supported. Thus the open door of the Paris Climate Accord. But for now we have a businessman, not a politician, in the Oval Office who expects results!

If not then "Your're fired"! Given the poor political solutions we have seen in the past for years I'll go with the guy. So far industry, Wall Street and incentives from loan companies with low percentages to buy a house and rebuild Detroit which is amazingly working so far even with the 'millenniials' getting into the market seems to be working. You won't hear that on the cable news either.

 

[FuzzySpider]

First up it is extremely political given the nations and their politicians discussing what to do about it. Even in the USA the Democrats are using this issue to generate votes and put down anyone who thinks that Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord was a viable consideration.

How humans should deal with global warming and potential responses to global warming are very political questions.

Whether or not global warming is occurring is not a political question at all. The people who know about this have spoken - it is. Thus the videos you posted, and the opinion of the pundit in question, are irrelevant.

 

[Hooplah]

How humans should deal with global warming and potential responses to global warming are very political questions.

Whether or not global warming is occurring is not a political question at all. The people who know about this have spoken - it is. Thus the videos you posted, and the opinion of the pundit in question, are irrelevant.

Many millions will disagree with your absolute opinion and how to deal with it. You disregard all the possible solutions versus the simplicity of only one way to deal with it and ignore all the others. Many won't even post here. Sort of like those who love Elite Dangerous versus those who are committed to changing it to their own play style. I wonder who will win that debate.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Many millions will disagree with your absolute opinion and how to deal with it. You disregard all the possible solutions versus the simplicity of only one way to deal with it and ignore all the others.

I offered no opinion how to deal with it. I didn't disregard or regard any solutions to anything. You don't appear to have read my post.

You linked two videos which claimed global warming was a hoax, and the claim was made by a pollster, not a scientist. My point is that mans opinion on global warming should be completely ignored. He is at best a crackpot and at worst a liar.

Global warming is a scientific question. The scientists versed in climate say it is real, ergo we move forward on the basis that it is real. Non-scientists claiming it isn't real are either stupid anti-intellectualists or dishonestly trying to deceive you.

NOTE: I am not suggesting "doing" anything in this post. I am suggesting that, on matters of science, you pay attention to actual scientists and not whack-jobs who think a 15 minute google search is a substitute for a 5 year masters degree in climatology.

Now, go and read this post again, several times if need be.

 

[Minonian]

If i remember correctly, Trumph asked NASA right after cut their budgets, America can reach mars within his presidency? I guess he want to leave a huge mark in history. And if mars cannot be reached? A sizeable war can do too. After all? The god of war, or war itself? Ain't too much difference to a stupid ill willed man like him.