Earth's Hottest Month

[dirttoys]

Good questions, here are answers that are only my personal opinion.

1) No, if human activity did nothing to the climate, it would be incredibly foolish to try to engineer and manage it. Frankly I would be more scared of some of the greenwashed idiots conjuring up schemes to darken the skies and other hairbrained ideas, than I am of the actual climate change underway. We cannot engineer our way out of this mess. The answer is simple, emit less carbon starting decades ago.

2) This question is moot. We already have the data, and it shows rather conclusively that human impact is significantly adding to the changes underway. You want to believe that it is not. But you do not have data showing anything for your side, only a faith and skepticism of what is now presented and agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Mistakes and poor forecasts have been made in the past. That does not invalidate the best available current science. Also what does this have to do with healthcare....

Good stuff here, thank you for the reply.

So, the intent of all the policy changes and money spent is not to save the human race? And the only answer is to go back in time and make some changes? The good news is, that costs nothing, because it can't be done. So to point one, while we have different opinions, we should be together on the action plan. Continue to study, spend nothing on action (unless you are advocating a time machine). Cool.

Question two, far from being moot, is the only question that matters. The only way to remove corruption and self interest from public policy is accountability. What we have is some correlation of co2 to temperature changes. I don't believe we have cause and affect. We have simple models of earths climate, we don't have conclusive models, because we don't fully understand the climate. The bevy of scientist you believe support the link of co2 to meaningful climate change will all begin their position with "The data we currently have, strongly suggests". The data we have is incomplete in a cycle that has gone on for billions of years. Nearly 100% of over the road trucks that were in a fatal accident used diesel fuel. Strong correlation, no cause and affect. Past history is no guarantee of future performance, but, it is the best indicator we have. Healthcare is a great indicator of a recent policy where citizens we convinced of a lie to allow the government to take a huge bite of private industry, and a little more of our freedom. Couple that with the zero accountability you seem to be ok with, and now you have:

A group of people that can say anything to get what they want, with no fear of what will happen when the citizens find out it is a lie=politician

I can't believe this is what you or anyone else wants, but we are here because despite history, we continue to believe the next lie, as if it is fact (and some of use even ask what the last lie has to do with the next one), and give our money and freedom to people that don't deserve it, and that we can't get it back from.

Thanks again for the reply,

ed

 

[deezler]

I think one problem with the internet is you can cherry pick data and prove any point you want. I’m sure you know I could post links to show the opposite of what you linked.

Well no, I do not know that. You would most likely not be able to find me detailed, wide-ranging reviews of scientific papers from the 1970s that show me that most scientists believed that a cooling phase was imminent, because it didn't happen. Feel free to try to prove it to me, but I doubt you can. This is why I posted three separate, good links. You might find skeptic/denier sites saying that it happened, but they wont be detailed, factual or accurate.

 

[/pine]

...This question is moot. We already have the data, and it shows rather conclusively that human impact is significantly adding to the changes underway. You want to believe that it is not. But you do not have data showing anything for your side, only a faith and skepticism of what is now presented and agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Mistakes and poor forecasts have been made in the past. That does not invalidate the best available current science. Also what does this have to do with healthcare....

LMAO...

You have what data?...you mean the data that was changed and convoluted so it would meet the AGW theory?....Too funny...!

 

[dodge man]

I did read several different stories, several of which disprove what was said in the 70’s. Of course they all talk about the different views people have had over the years and how looking back they were wrong or right depending on your perspective. The problem is the internet didn’t exist so finding the original stories is hard, they are just referred to.

It’s been several years ago but I looked at the flat earth society’s website. I thought it was a joke, that it was suppose to be funny. I think I was wrong, there are people that believe it. So once again, lots of misinformation on the internet.

My major problem is the entire thing is being shoved down our throats. It’s now “trendy”. I want cleaner air, I want cleaner water. My experience is that many people that have jumped on the bandwagon don’t walk the talk. I have a couple of neighbors that drive Prius’s, one couple mow a very little of there yard and they have solar panels on their roof, make their own maple syrup. Seems like a small thing but people like that make a difference and I respect that.

 

[jmc]

My first exposure to climate change theory was in a Scientific American article back in the 80's.*** They called it Gaia. Besides sea level rise, they also predicted longer droughts, deeper floods, and more severe storms. It's one thing for biased players to go back, cherry pick events, and say, "Told ya." But this was PREDICTED. And it's happening sooner than "some day".

*** Turns out, earlier predictions were from Exxon's own scientists. You can imagine how that went over with Big Oil Management!

 

[Midniteoyl]

Once 'science' became more about grants and politics, it can be hard to differentiate between agendas and useful data.

He who controls the grants, controls the data.

 

[Jstpssng]

The thing about science is that it's always changing as new data comes to light. When things become set in concrete it stops being a science and morphs into a religion.

 

[/pine]

The sad thing about people that have been brainwashed is they don't know they've been brainwashed...!
It's unfortunate that those that can't think for themselves religiously believe what they are being told without question...

 

[cqaigy2]

"For much of its history, our planet has been hotter—sometimes much hotter—than it is today."

I've seen this sentence more than a few times, and i wonder if they are referring to the history of the planet as a whole, or just for the short period of time since life was on it?

 

[Jstpssng]

The sad thing about people that have been brainwashed is they don't know they've been brainwashed...!
It's unfortunate that those that can't think for themselves religiously believe what they are being told without question...

I agree. That's why I can't understand people who keep bringing up statements from 50 years ago, which are obviously outdated. Science does evolve.
We also are starting to see it more and more from people who don't believe in vaccinating, whether it's for the recent Covid, or to prevent things like polio, the measles and chicken pox. Yet that fear goes all of the way back to the 1800s and the first small pox vaccination.

I will trust scientists and doctors over random internet posts.