Tool of the day
07-19-2017 | 02:53 PM
#9531
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 236
Likes: 13
From: pj's and coffee
97% huh? Ok..... let's go with that even though it's complete BS. 97% of some vague "scientific community" (whatever that is 
) is telling us climate change is real.That means the climate is changing and of that, I have no doubt. It's changed in varying ways lots of times over the millennia. But, that's not what you really mean is it?
You want us to believe...... (cue the angelic chorus and golden beams of enlightenment from Al Gore's general direction wherever that might be - probably on his G-5 enroute from another boondoggle)... that's right, believe with all our heart that humans are the cause of "climate change", right? That for good or bad, we actually have the ability to control the climate on a global scale (cue the Bond villain wringing his hands in evil anticipation of the chaos he'll cause).
Get 97% of whatever "scientific community" has been promised enough research grant dollars courtesy of Uncle Sugar to agree to that premise much less prove it.
No one can or will prove that with real science because it's complete BS and your 97% of whatever knows it.
So, assuming you're willing to graciously admit that CO2 can affect the climate, take the following into consideration: there are 7+ BILLION people in the world; they have 1+ BILLION working automobiles, and every single one produces 4.7 metric TONS of CO2 every year; the vast number of military and civilian jets in the world that fly every single day; the tens of thousands of factories in the world; and the reduction in CO2-absorbing trees and plants from the growth and spread of the population. With all of that, uh, yeah, it's very easy to see how the global population of earth could affect the atmosphere and, by result, the climate.
I doubt any of that will make you change your mind, though. Because you don't want to. No amount of evidence in the world can make someone believe something they simply don't want to believe. They'll simply discount the evidence, no matter how strong or numerous, or discount the source of the evidence as biased, even if it's very clear and likely that it's not.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ycle/page5.php
World Population Clock: 7.5 Billion People (2017) - Worldometers
World Vehicle Population Tops 1 Billion Units | News & Analysis content from WardsAuto
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/gr...nger-vehicle-0
07-19-2017 | 02:55 PM
#9532
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
I am always amazed when adults that fly planes using science don't trust science When 97% of a scientific community is telling you climate change is real. It's a shame that it became politicized, and people can't separate their political desires from rational thinking. Separate church and state folks
http://www.cfact.org/2014/05/30/the-...nge-consensus/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#7fb23e593414
07-19-2017 | 02:57 PM
#9533
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 236
Likes: 13
From: pj's and coffee
If the climate changes for the warmer, and that warming is high enough long enough, you don't think that would cause the globe to warm? It's really not that tough to put together.
07-19-2017 | 03:05 PM
#9534
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Yeah, you're probably right. Scientists couldn't have possibly figured out with any degree of certainty that CO2 affects the atmosphere and, as a result, the climate. Oh, wait. They have. Just one example is cited below...unless you want to tell all of those idiots at NASA that they're wrong. All those engineers and rocket scientists are pretty dumb.
So, assuming you're willing to graciously admit that CO2 can affect the climate, take the following into consideration: there are 7+ BILLION people in the world; they have 1+ BILLION working automobiles, and every single one produces 4.7 metric TONS of CO2 every year; the vast number of military and civilian jets in the world that fly every single day; the tens of thousands of factories in the world; and the reduction in CO2-absorbing trees and plants from the growth and spread of the population. With all of that, uh, yeah, it's very easy to see how the global population of earth could affect the atmosphere and, by result, the climate.
I doubt any of that will make you change your mind, though. Because you don't want to. No amount of evidence in the world can make someone believe something they simply don't want to believe. They'll simply discount the evidence, no matter how strong or numerous, or discount the source of the evidence as biased, even if it's very clear and likely that it's not.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ycle/page5.php
World Population Clock: 7.5 Billion People (2017) - Worldometers
World Vehicle Population Tops 1 Billion Units | News & Analysis content from WardsAuto
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/gr...nger-vehicle-0
So, assuming you're willing to graciously admit that CO2 can affect the climate, take the following into consideration: there are 7+ BILLION people in the world; they have 1+ BILLION working automobiles, and every single one produces 4.7 metric TONS of CO2 every year; the vast number of military and civilian jets in the world that fly every single day; the tens of thousands of factories in the world; and the reduction in CO2-absorbing trees and plants from the growth and spread of the population. With all of that, uh, yeah, it's very easy to see how the global population of earth could affect the atmosphere and, by result, the climate.
I doubt any of that will make you change your mind, though. Because you don't want to. No amount of evidence in the world can make someone believe something they simply don't want to believe. They'll simply discount the evidence, no matter how strong or numerous, or discount the source of the evidence as biased, even if it's very clear and likely that it's not.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ycle/page5.php
World Population Clock: 7.5 Billion People (2017) - Worldometers
World Vehicle Population Tops 1 Billion Units | News & Analysis content from WardsAuto
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/gr...nger-vehicle-0
I havent seen any data in this arena, but would be interested if you could pm me or post those numbers. This is a serious inquiry because I have failed to locate any of that info.
Thanks Gator
07-19-2017 | 03:27 PM
#9535
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 236
Likes: 13
From: pj's and coffee
Super- Lets talk about reversal. What efforts can we take besides a meaningless Paris Climate Agreement where most of the world wont do jack$hit about their contribution to the problem and we make all the sacrifices? Also, what level of CO2 output would markedly reverse the trend?
I havent seen any data in this arena, but would be interested if you could pm me or post those numbers. This is a serious inquiry because I have failed to locate any of that info.
Thanks Gator
I havent seen any data in this arena, but would be interested if you could pm me or post those numbers. This is a serious inquiry because I have failed to locate any of that info.
Thanks Gator
I thought this article was interesting, although its but one single source of info and I'm just putting it here as one anecdotal answer to your question ...it uses 450 ppm as a generally accepted benchmark that we need to not rise above.
https://www.climatecommunication.org...tialaction.pdf
Excerpt: "In order to stabilize CO2 concentrations at about 450 ppm by 2050, global emissions would have to decline by about 60% by 2050. Industrialized countries greenhouse gas emissions would have to decline by about 80% by 2050."
07-19-2017 | 03:38 PM
#9536
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Great question. And if I knew the answer I wouldn't be a pilot. I agree that stuff like the Paris Climate Accord is way more about politicians congratulating themselves than actually getting a thing done.
I thought this article was interesting, although its but one single source of info and I'm just putting it here as one anecdotal answer to your question ...it uses 450 ppm as a generally accepted benchmark that we need to not rise above.
https://www.climatecommunication.org...tialaction.pdf
Excerpt: "In order to stabilize CO2 concentrations at about 450 ppm by 2050, global emissions would have to decline by about 60% by 2050. Industrialized countries greenhouse gas emissions would have to decline by about 80% by 2050."
I thought this article was interesting, although its but one single source of info and I'm just putting it here as one anecdotal answer to your question ...it uses 450 ppm as a generally accepted benchmark that we need to not rise above.
https://www.climatecommunication.org...tialaction.pdf
Excerpt: "In order to stabilize CO2 concentrations at about 450 ppm by 2050, global emissions would have to decline by about 60% by 2050. Industrialized countries greenhouse gas emissions would have to decline by about 80% by 2050."
We can't even harness the sun efficiently. Nuclear is about the only thing we get "right".
The Earth has been known to fluctuate throughout its life, so we'll see.
The endless bickering does get old😑
Peace👍
07-19-2017 | 04:39 PM
#9538
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,884
Likes: 0
From: Left seat on a kite
07-19-2017 | 04:51 PM
#9539
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
07-19-2017 | 05:43 PM
#9540
Banned
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
From: systems analyst
I blame Anne coulter and her rant. That much hot air must have had some impact on the atmosphere. Maybe if we harness the power of her whining like a 16 year old we could solve world hunger. Or just collectively make her ride the bus for the rest of her life
Could you imagine if the airlines started a blacklist? People would straighten up and act with some semblance of respect
Could you imagine if the airlines started a blacklist? People would straighten up and act with some semblance of respect
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
