Remember me
▼ Content

Do We even want solve climate change?



Page 1 of 3123>
Do We even want solve climate change?29-09-2017 20:35
climatesolutions
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
I paused and reflected for just a brief moment after Hurricane Irma and then Hurricane Maria, do we even want to solve climate change ? Scientists already know and constantly remind us that climate change is real and is starting to affect the world. From Neil deGrasse Tyson to James Hansen, "the father of climate change awareness," they tap us on our shoulder and whisper "climate change is real buddy!" Sometimes they even shout it.


Man on moon, Pluto

The two aren't directly connected, but, if we can put a man on the moon and send satellites deep within the solar system ... we can solve climate change. For me it isn't even a question, we just have to determine who is interested in solving it and working backwards. For example, Russia and the USA were both interested in going to the moon to prove their superiority so scientists worked night and day to see how they could do this. Likewise environmentalists and whoever else believes in climate change simply need to band together and work on the solution instead of having long winded conversations with climate change deniers across all sections of the internet. This has quite literally only diminished the issue into a talking point, particularly in American politics. I for one don't care too much for American politics (beyond American bombing nations and being one of the chief proponents of climate change - ok, so maybe I do care). However, there is no immediate economic incentive for America to act and we should stop expecting them to. ....


https://www.ourinterest.org/single-post/2017/09/29/Do-we-Even-want-to-solve-Climate-Change

So do we ?
29-09-2017 20:41
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?

Edited on 29-09-2017 20:42
29-09-2017 21:04
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?


I'll go with ozone depletion. https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/ozone-layer-and-causes-of-ozone-depletion.php

The record amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is helping to preserve and should allow for the ozone layer to recover to post 1980 industrial levels. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UVB/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00722-7

And until the method in which data was collected for global warming ozone depletion did match the surface temperature increase. And scientists at NASA, the IPCC and NOAA are relying on more CO2 being "dumped" into our atmosphere to allow the ozone layer to recover.
One unanswered question is if the amount of UV-B radiation contains enough energy to help with warming. After all once it's refracted it changes it's wavelength.
Who knows, maybe saying CO2 is harmful to our atmosphere is like saying eating chocolate is bad for your health. In the movie Sleeper by Woody Allen he had a man wake up 20 years into the future only to find out that eating chocolate was good for your health. Today doctors say eating chocolate can be beneficial to one's own health.


Au Revoir
29-09-2017 21:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
climatesolutions wrote:
I paused and reflected for just a brief moment after Hurricane Irma and then Hurricane Maria, do we even want to solve climate change ? Scientists already know and constantly remind us that climate change is real and is starting to affect the world. From Neil deGrasse Tyson to James Hansen, "the father of climate change awareness," they tap us on our shoulder and whisper "climate change is real buddy!" Sometimes they even shout it.


Man on moon, Pluto

The two aren't directly connected, but, if we can put a man on the moon and send satellites deep within the solar system ... we can solve climate change. For me it isn't even a question, we just have to determine who is interested in solving it and working backwards. For example, Russia and the USA were both interested in going to the moon to prove their superiority so scientists worked night and day to see how they could do this. Likewise environmentalists and whoever else believes in climate change simply need to band together and work on the solution instead of having long winded conversations with climate change deniers across all sections of the internet. This has quite literally only diminished the issue into a talking point, particularly in American politics. I for one don't care too much for American politics (beyond American bombing nations and being one of the chief proponents of climate change - ok, so maybe I do care). However, there is no immediate economic incentive for America to act and we should stop expecting them to. ....


https://www.ourinterest.org/single-post/2017/09/29/Do-we-Even-want-to-solve-Climate-Change

So do we ?


What 'climate change'?

Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2017 22:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?


I'll go with ozone depletion. ...deleted Holy Link...

The ozone is not being depleted.
James_ wrote:
The record amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is helping to preserve and should allow for the ozone layer to recover to post 1980 industrial levels....deleted Holy Links...

CO2 doesn't do anything to ozone, nor is it involved in the Chapman cycle at all.
James_ wrote:
And until the method in which data was collected for global warming

What data??? What method??? You mean the bad math you idiots keep trying to use?
James_ wrote:
ozone depletion did match the surface temperature increase.

The ozone is not being depleted. You don't know the surface temperature of Earth.
James_ wrote:
And scientists at NASA, the IPCC and NOAA are relying on more CO2 being "dumped" into our atmosphere to allow the ozone layer to recover.

Of course they are. They are trying to justify expanding their budgets.

Science is not NASA, the IPCC, or NOAA. Science is not a government agency or a political group.

James_ wrote:
One unanswered question is if the amount of UV-B radiation contains enough energy to help with warming.

UV-B doesn't warm anything. It does help COOL the atmosphere though, by converting oxygen into ozone.
James_ wrote:
After all once it's refracted it changes it's wavelength.

Refraction does not change it's wavelength (except while in the refracting medium itself, the frequency still does not change).
James_ wrote:
Who knows, maybe saying CO2 is harmful to our atmosphere is like saying eating chocolate is bad for your health. In the movie Sleeper by Woody Allen he had a man wake up 20 years into the future only to find out that eating chocolate was good for your health. Today doctors say eating chocolate can be beneficial to one's own health.


Au Revoir

Chocolate is food. It is good for you (once you process the revolting nut).


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2017 00:48
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?


I'll go with ozone depletion. ...deleted Holy Link...

The ozone is not being depleted.
James_ wrote:
The record amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is helping to preserve and should allow for the ozone layer to recover to post 1980 industrial levels....deleted Holy Links...

CO2 doesn't do anything to ozone, nor is it involved in the Chapman cycle at all.
James_ wrote:
And until the method in which data was collected for global warming

What data??? What method??? You mean the bad math you idiots keep trying to use?
James_ wrote:
ozone depletion did match the surface temperature increase.

The ozone is not being depleted. You don't know the surface temperature of Earth.
James_ wrote:
And scientists at NASA, the IPCC and NOAA are relying on more CO2 being "dumped" into our atmosphere to allow the ozone layer to recover.

Of course they are. They are trying to justify expanding their budgets.

Science is not NASA, the IPCC, or NOAA. Science is not a government agency or a political group.

James_ wrote:
One unanswered question is if the amount of UV-B radiation contains enough energy to help with warming.

UV-B doesn't warm anything. It does help COOL the atmosphere though, by converting oxygen into ozone.
James_ wrote:
After all once it's refracted it changes it's wavelength.

Refraction does not change it's wavelength (except while in the refracting medium itself, the frequency still does not change).
James_ wrote:
Who knows, maybe saying CO2 is harmful to our atmosphere is like saying eating chocolate is bad for your health. In the movie Sleeper by Woody Allen he had a man wake up 20 years into the future only to find out that eating chocolate was good for your health. Today doctors say eating chocolate can be beneficial to one's own health.


Au Revoir

Chocolate is food. It is good for you (once you process the revolting nut).


I think someone has been sniffing spray paint again.
30-09-2017 00:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?


I'll go with ozone depletion. ...deleted Holy Link...

The ozone is not being depleted.
James_ wrote:
The record amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is helping to preserve and should allow for the ozone layer to recover to post 1980 industrial levels....deleted Holy Links...

CO2 doesn't do anything to ozone, nor is it involved in the Chapman cycle at all.
James_ wrote:
And until the method in which data was collected for global warming

What data??? What method??? You mean the bad math you idiots keep trying to use?
James_ wrote:
ozone depletion did match the surface temperature increase.

The ozone is not being depleted. You don't know the surface temperature of Earth.
James_ wrote:
And scientists at NASA, the IPCC and NOAA are relying on more CO2 being "dumped" into our atmosphere to allow the ozone layer to recover.

Of course they are. They are trying to justify expanding their budgets.

Science is not NASA, the IPCC, or NOAA. Science is not a government agency or a political group.

James_ wrote:
One unanswered question is if the amount of UV-B radiation contains enough energy to help with warming.

UV-B doesn't warm anything. It does help COOL the atmosphere though, by converting oxygen into ozone.
James_ wrote:
After all once it's refracted it changes it's wavelength.

Refraction does not change it's wavelength (except while in the refracting medium itself, the frequency still does not change).
James_ wrote:
Who knows, maybe saying CO2 is harmful to our atmosphere is like saying eating chocolate is bad for your health. In the movie Sleeper by Woody Allen he had a man wake up 20 years into the future only to find out that eating chocolate was good for your health. Today doctors say eating chocolate can be beneficial to one's own health.


Au Revoir

Chocolate is food. It is good for you (once you process the revolting nut).


I think someone has been sniffing spray paint again.


Nope. Too cold and wet here to paint what I paint now. Actually, I haven't painted all summer this year.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2017 01:19
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Pourquoi tu ne comprends pas au revoir ?
Tu n'est pas tres intelligent ? Je sais, tu est un Americain, il est vrais ?

You really don't get it, do you ?
My post was in response to what Tim the Plumber asked. I thought it was a good question. He also did not ask anyone to elaborate, just post a link to some science that supports that person's opinion.
You're wanting control. Also people have committed suicide because of idiots like you. Kind of why I have absolutely no respect for you. That is something that should never be allowed.
And I have noticed that you're querying me rather than responding to Tim the Plumber's question. You need to stick to the topic.
Edited on 30-09-2017 01:36
30-09-2017 03:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
James_ wrote:
Pourquoi tu ne comprends pas au revoir ?
Tu n'est pas tres intelligent ? Je sais, tu est un Americain, il est vrais ?

You really don't get it, do you ?

Inversion fallacy. YOU don't get it.
James_ wrote:
My post was in response to what Tim the Plumber asked.

Fine. No problem. It is not a personal message board here.
James_ wrote:
I thought it was a good question.

So did I.
James_ wrote:
He also did not ask anyone to elaborate, just post a link to some science that supports that person's opinion.

You didn't use any science. He was specifically asking for the science.
James_ wrote:
You're wanting control.

You are wanting to confuse religion with science.
James_ wrote:
Also people have committed suicide because of idiots like you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You really ARE reaching with that one!
James_ wrote:
Kind of why I have absolutely no respect for you.

You never did anyway. Meh.
James_ wrote:
That is something that should never be allowed.

Typical liberal line. "Lock 'em up! Punish them for their opinion!".
James_ wrote:
And I have noticed that you're querying me rather than responding to Tim the Plumber's question.

I'm not trying to argue in favor of your religion.
James_ wrote:
You need to stick to the topic.

I am.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-09-2017 03:51
30-09-2017 04:57
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1072)
Well, it appears our new friend Climatepolutions really has no interest in participating here. It actually looks like he was just dropping in to scare up a couple of bucks. Follow me....

Climatepolutions wrote:
Likewise environmentalists and whoever else believes in climate change simply need to band together and work on the solution instead of having long winded conversations with climate change deniers across all sections of the internet. This has quite literally only diminished the issue into a talking point.

If he had done any reading here at all he would have known that the Church of Global Warming is swimming upstream on this forum. So why would he come here to farther "diminish the issue"? As with most issues in life, if you want answers, follow the money.

I went to the website and the above posting from Climatepolutions is only a preamble to a longer article. And at the bottom of the article...Wala!

Author: Craig Harewood/ OurInterest Investment Director

Seems as though the lost cause is broke and someone needs some money to invest. Maybe Greenman will give up his bomb shelter money this week and give his tithe to the Church.

Edited on 30-09-2017 05:14
30-09-2017 05:15
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
climatesolutions wrote:
I paused and reflected for just a brief moment after Hurricane Irma and then Hurricane Maria, do we even want to solve climate change ? Scientists already know and constantly remind us that climate change is real and is starting to affect the world. From Neil deGrasse Tyson to James Hansen, "the father of climate change awareness," they tap us on our shoulder and whisper "climate change is real buddy!" Sometimes they even shout it.


Man on moon, Pluto

The two aren't directly connected, but, if we can put a man on the moon and send satellites deep within the solar system ... we can solve climate change. For me it isn't even a question, we just have to determine who is interested in solving it and working backwards. For example, Russia and the USA were both interested in going to the moon to prove their superiority so scientists worked night and day to see how they could do this. Likewise environmentalists and whoever else believes in climate change simply need to band together and work on the solution instead of having long winded conversations with climate change deniers across all sections of the internet. This has quite literally only diminished the issue into a talking point, particularly in American politics. I for one don't care too much for American politics (beyond American bombing nations and being one of the chief proponents of climate change - ok, so maybe I do care). However, there is no immediate economic incentive for America to act and we should stop expecting them to. ....


https://www.ourinterest.org/single-post/2017/09/29/Do-we-Even-want-to-solve-Climate-Change

So do we ?


Welcome to the forum Craig. We should be, but you are probably right about people not wanting to solve Climate Change. No one is serious about it on our side of the pond. It is like we fully expect the rest of the world to solve it for us. That will be easier than removing all of our baggage at one time. Or even lightening the load along the way just doesn't sound appealing to a nation that leads the world in fearlessness. Remember, fools dance where angels fear to tread.

I haven't looked at the responses from others to your introduction, but I'm sure it will be hilarious. We are trolled quite a bit by the Deniers here. Their game is to see how long a newbe can tolerate their constant barrages from multiple angles. Then they have their little circle jerk upon the newbe's surrender declaration, usually in the form of one last desperate post.

So what do you bring to the table? Do you have a solution for Climate Change that we can talk about?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
30-09-2017 14:09
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Pourquoi tu ne comprends pas au revoir ?
Tu n'est pas tres intelligent ? Je sais, tu est un Americain, il est vrais ?

You really don't get it, do you ?

Inversion fallacy. YOU don't get it.
James_ wrote:
My post was in response to what Tim the Plumber asked.

Fine. No problem. It is not a personal message board here.
James_ wrote:
I thought it was a good question.

So did I.
James_ wrote:
He also did not ask anyone to elaborate, just post a link to some science that supports that person's opinion.

You didn't use any science. He was specifically asking for the science.
James_ wrote:
You're wanting control.

You are wanting to confuse religion with science.
James_ wrote:
Also people have committed suicide because of idiots like you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You really ARE reaching with that one!
James_ wrote:
Kind of why I have absolutely no respect for you.

You never did anyway. Meh.
James_ wrote:
That is something that should never be allowed.

Typical liberal line. "Lock 'em up! Punish them for their opinion!".
James_ wrote:
And I have noticed that you're querying me rather than responding to Tim the Plumber's question.

I'm not trying to argue in favor of your religion.
James_ wrote:
You need to stick to the topic.

I am.


ITN,
You've been in this forum for what ? 5 years? That's sad. It tells me that you don't have a life because this is it.
30-09-2017 16:28
climatesolutions
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Stronger more frequent hurricanes for one ...

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?
30-09-2017 16:31
climatesolutions
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
I'm not the author .... just meant to reflect on lol.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Well, it appears our new friend Climatepolutions really has no interest in participating here. It actually looks like he was just dropping in to scare up a couple of bucks. Follow me....

Climatepolutions wrote:
Likewise environmentalists and whoever else believes in climate change simply need to band together and work on the solution instead of having long winded conversations with climate change deniers across all sections of the internet. This has quite literally only diminished the issue into a talking point.

If he had done any reading here at all he would have known that the Church of Global Warming is swimming upstream on this forum. So why would he come here to farther "diminish the issue"? As with most issues in life, if you want answers, follow the money.

I went to the website and the above posting from Climatepolutions is only a preamble to a longer article. And at the bottom of the article...Wala!

Author: Craig Harewood/ OurInterest Investment Director

Seems as though the lost cause is broke and someone needs some money to invest. Maybe Greenman will give up his bomb shelter money this week and give his tithe to the Church.
30-09-2017 16:34
climatesolutions
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Craig articulates that (the solution) within his article.

I was just inspired and decided to share ... started to follow him and his project on Twitter.

GreenMan wrote:
climatesolutions wrote:
I paused and reflected for just a brief moment after Hurricane Irma and then Hurricane Maria, do we even want to solve climate change ? Scientists already know and constantly remind us that climate change is real and is starting to affect the world. From Neil deGrasse Tyson to James Hansen, "the father of climate change awareness," they tap us on our shoulder and whisper "climate change is real buddy!" Sometimes they even shout it.


Man on moon, Pluto

The two aren't directly connected, but, if we can put a man on the moon and send satellites deep within the solar system ... we can solve climate change. For me it isn't even a question, we just have to determine who is interested in solving it and working backwards. For example, Russia and the USA were both interested in going to the moon to prove their superiority so scientists worked night and day to see how they could do this. Likewise environmentalists and whoever else believes in climate change simply need to band together and work on the solution instead of having long winded conversations with climate change deniers across all sections of the internet. This has quite literally only diminished the issue into a talking point, particularly in American politics. I for one don't care too much for American politics (beyond American bombing nations and being one of the chief proponents of climate change - ok, so maybe I do care). However, there is no immediate economic incentive for America to act and we should stop expecting them to. ....


https://www.ourinterest.org/single-post/2017/09/29/Do-we-Even-want-to-solve-Climate-Change

So do we ?


Welcome to the forum Craig. We should be, but you are probably right about people not wanting to solve Climate Change. No one is serious about it on our side of the pond. It is like we fully expect the rest of the world to solve it for us. That will be easier than removing all of our baggage at one time. Or even lightening the load along the way just doesn't sound appealing to a nation that leads the world in fearlessness. Remember, fools dance where angels fear to tread.

I haven't looked at the responses from others to your introduction, but I'm sure it will be hilarious. We are trolled quite a bit by the Deniers here. Their game is to see how long a newbe can tolerate their constant barrages from multiple angles. Then they have their little circle jerk upon the newbe's surrender declaration, usually in the form of one last desperate post.

So what do you bring to the table? Do you have a solution for Climate Change that we can talk about?
30-09-2017 16:45
GasGuzler
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Climatesolutions wrote:
I'm not the author .... just meant to reflect on lol.



I see, well thanks for the clarification.

I'll make you a deal. I will join arms and stand with you, and work with you to help solve climate change IF, and only IF you can solve the puzzle below. Can you do it?
Attached image:


Edited on 30-09-2017 16:47
30-09-2017 16:50
climatesolutions
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
I literally don't even have a clue.

The "church" of global warming is ? Got here by a Google link and shared smh.

To solve a puzzle there must be a puzzle to solve ... that is just an image.
30-09-2017 18:35
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GasGuzler wrote:
Climatesolutions wrote:
I'm not the author .... just meant to reflect on lol.



I see, well thanks for the clarification.

I'll make you a deal. I will join arms and stand with you, and work with you to help solve climate change IF, and only IF you can solve the puzzle below. Can you do it?



http://www.pammarketingnut.com/2013/02/social-brand-humanization-transparency-vs-authenticity/
Attached image:

30-09-2017 21:21
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?


I'll go with ozone depletion. https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/ozone-layer-and-causes-of-ozone-depletion.php

The record amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is helping to preserve and should allow for the ozone layer to recover to post 1980 industrial levels. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UVB/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00722-7

And until the method in which data was collected for global warming ozone depletion did match the surface temperature increase. And scientists at NASA, the IPCC and NOAA are relying on more CO2 being "dumped" into our atmosphere to allow the ozone layer to recover.
One unanswered question is if the amount of UV-B radiation contains enough energy to help with warming. After all once it's refracted it changes it's wavelength.
Who knows, maybe saying CO2 is harmful to our atmosphere is like saying eating chocolate is bad for your health. In the movie Sleeper by Woody Allen he had a man wake up 20 years into the future only to find out that eating chocolate was good for your health. Today doctors say eating chocolate can be beneficial to one's own health.


What???

Are you saying that ozone deletion is caused by CO2 or that CO2 will cause more ozone in the upperlayers of the atmosphere?

Either way you are the first to say it.

Ozone happens when O2 is converted to O3 by the action of high energy UV in the upper atmosphere. No CO2 involved.
30-09-2017 21:24
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
James_ wrote:
Pourquoi tu ne comprends pas au revoir ?
Tu n'est pas tres intelligent ? Je sais, tu est un Americain, il est vrais ?

You really don't get it, do you ?
My post was in response to what Tim the Plumber asked. I thought it was a good question. He also did not ask anyone to elaborate, just post a link to some science that supports that person's opinion.
You're wanting control. Also people have committed suicide because of idiots like you. Kind of why I have absolutely no respect for you. That is something that should never be allowed.
And I have noticed that you're querying me rather than responding to Tim the Plumber's question. You need to stick to the topic.


Are you saying that ozone depletion is caused by CO2?

If so you must link to and quote from that link some sort of science that backs that.

Start from appreciating that I can understand basic science and can read a science paper.
30-09-2017 21:26
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
climatesolutions wrote:
Stronger more frequent hurricanes for one ...

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?


OK, now do the rest.

2, Mechanism in your own words.

3, Science linked in to show some sort of scientific support for this mechanism.

4, Then we can look at it to see if the problem is significant. That's significant in terms of being big, not just slightly measurable.
30-09-2017 22:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Well, it appears our new friend Climatepolutions really has no interest in participating here. It actually looks like he was just dropping in to scare up a couple of bucks. Follow me....

Climatepolutions wrote:
Likewise environmentalists and whoever else believes in climate change simply need to band together and work on the solution instead of having long winded conversations with climate change deniers across all sections of the internet. This has quite literally only diminished the issue into a talking point.

If he had done any reading here at all he would have known that the Church of Global Warming is swimming upstream on this forum. So why would he come here to farther "diminish the issue"? As with most issues in life, if you want answers, follow the money.

I went to the website and the above posting from Climatepolutions is only a preamble to a longer article. And at the bottom of the article...Wala!

Author: Craig Harewood/ OurInterest Investment Director

Seems as though the lost cause is broke and someone needs some money to invest. Maybe Greenman will give up his bomb shelter money this week and give his tithe to the Church.


He probably DOES give money to his Church. The Church of Global Warming.



The Parrot Killer
30-09-2017 22:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
GreenMan wrote:
Welcome to the forum Craig. We should be, but you are probably right about people not wanting to solve Climate Change.

Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.
GreenMan wrote:
No one is serious about it on our side of the pond.

Serious about what? You can't even define it!
GreenMan wrote:
It is like we fully expect the rest of the world to solve it for us.

Solve what? Something you can't define?
GreenMan wrote:
That will be easier than removing all of our baggage at one time. Or even lightening the load along the way just doesn't sound appealing to a nation that leads the world in fearlessness. Remember, fools dance where angels fear to tread.

Random phrases.
GreenMan wrote:
So what do you bring to the table? Do you have a solution for Climate Change that we can talk about?

There is NO 'solution' to something you can't define!


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-09-2017 22:05
30-09-2017 22:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Pourquoi tu ne comprends pas au revoir ?
Tu n'est pas tres intelligent ? Je sais, tu est un Americain, il est vrais ?

You really don't get it, do you ?

Inversion fallacy. YOU don't get it.
James_ wrote:
My post was in response to what Tim the Plumber asked.

Fine. No problem. It is not a personal message board here.
James_ wrote:
I thought it was a good question.

So did I.
James_ wrote:
He also did not ask anyone to elaborate, just post a link to some science that supports that person's opinion.

You didn't use any science. He was specifically asking for the science.
James_ wrote:
You're wanting control.

You are wanting to confuse religion with science.
James_ wrote:
Also people have committed suicide because of idiots like you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You really ARE reaching with that one!
James_ wrote:
Kind of why I have absolutely no respect for you.

You never did anyway. Meh.
James_ wrote:
That is something that should never be allowed.

Typical liberal line. "Lock 'em up! Punish them for their opinion!".
James_ wrote:
And I have noticed that you're querying me rather than responding to Tim the Plumber's question.

I'm not trying to argue in favor of your religion.
James_ wrote:
You need to stick to the topic.

I am.


ITN,
You've been in this forum for what ? 5 years? That's sad. It tells me that you don't have a life because this is it.

But I do. If you figure that length of time on a forum determines that, I would say it is YOU that probably has no life.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2017 22:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
climatesolutions wrote:
Stronger more frequent hurricanes for one ...


Hurricanes are not stronger or more frequent. You can look up the historical hurricane data from the National Hurricane Center.

Remember we went 12 years without a storm ever touching the United States mainland. That was blamed on 'global warming' too.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2017 22:10
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" wrote: Can you tell us....

Ya been told before & you deny.....thus part of yer name, "old sick silly sleepy AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger".
Edited on 30-09-2017 22:25
30-09-2017 22:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
climatesolutions wrote:
I'm not the author .... just meant to reflect on lol.


Ah....so we have a lazy thinker here then eh? You can't come up with an argument of your own, you have to use the arguments of others.

Guys like you just echo references and links as if they were your own argument. Looks like you bring absolutely nothing of your own. You are just a mindless faithful member of the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2017 22:24
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffs: You can't come up with an argument of your own....

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" makes up its own unreasoned excuses to be an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.... like "don'T rump" does.
Edited on 30-09-2017 22:25
30-09-2017 23:03
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" wrote: Can you tell us....

Ya been told before & you deny.....thus part of yer name, "old sick silly sleepy AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger".


To clarify; Litethinker says that he has answered this challenge.

Given that when somebody offers me the opportunity to present my case against a very clear challenge I jump at it, it is reasonable to assume that he is simply wishing the challenge away.

Edited on 30-09-2017 23:04
01-10-2017 06:47
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Welcome to the forum Craig. We should be, but you are probably right about people not wanting to solve Climate Change.

Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.
GreenMan wrote:
No one is serious about it on our side of the pond.

Serious about what? You can't even define it!
GreenMan wrote:
It is like we fully expect the rest of the world to solve it for us.

Solve what? Something you can't define?
GreenMan wrote:
That will be easier than removing all of our baggage at one time. Or even lightening the load along the way just doesn't sound appealing to a nation that leads the world in fearlessness. Remember, fools dance where angels fear to tread.

Random phrases.
GreenMan wrote:
So what do you bring to the table? Do you have a solution for Climate Change that we can talk about?

There is NO 'solution' to something you can't define!


Global Warming is the reason why the earth is not 33C colder than it is right now. If it were not for Global Warming, the planet would be an ice ball, because the it is too far from the Sun to be as warm as it is. Some guy figured that out quite a long time ago, and it isn't even contested. It has to do with math though, so you probably don't agree.

Climate Change is a term being used to indicate that Global Warming is increasing, and that our climate is changing because of that. It is a slow process, so it is difficult for some people to discern. It's easier to see if you take snap shots over time for comparison. Of course, that is too complicated for some people, because they get confused about the type of photographic material that was available for use 100 years ago, when they first started taking snapshots, and they went from just black and white to color along the way, so the snapshots taken back then might be as clear as the ones taken recently.

It doesn't mean that you have to do anything different. Those who make it through will know what caused the problem, and when they rebuild society, they will keep that in mind, and figure out some other way to generate energy.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
01-10-2017 06:54
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
ITN,
You've been in this forum for what ? 5 years? That's sad. It tells me that you don't have a life because this is it.

But I do. If you figure that length of time on a forum determines that, I would say it is YOU that probably has no life.


I think James is right, Parrot. Your activity here does indicate an obsession. You must spend most of your time normally spent working, to make all the posts you make. You might want to seek counseling, before this thing goes too far, and they have to admit you for treatment. I saw those episodes on House, where they had to admit him, and that didn't look like no fun. Maybe if you go now, they can start treatments right away, and do it outpatient.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
01-10-2017 07:03
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
climatesolutions wrote:
Stronger more frequent hurricanes for one ...


Hurricanes are not stronger or more frequent. You can look up the historical hurricane data from the National Hurricane Center.

Remember we went 12 years without a storm ever touching the United States mainland. That was blamed on 'global warming' too.


How could we forget that, with you Deniers using it to clobber poor ole Al Gore every time he opens his mouth, or makes another movie.

What you guys like to do is forget about other things, like Harvey and Irma, both record breaking storms, and coming in so close together that they could have been siblings.

Some people just don't get it. It's like a comedy show. They have to have a complete idiot around, to make everyone feel good about themselves. What would a Climate Change Debate Forum be, without some idiots taking the stupid side? Strange how there seems to be a few more idiots in this forum than the national average indicates there should be.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
01-10-2017 10:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Welcome to the forum Craig. We should be, but you are probably right about people not wanting to solve Climate Change.

Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.
GreenMan wrote:
No one is serious about it on our side of the pond.

Serious about what? You can't even define it!
GreenMan wrote:
It is like we fully expect the rest of the world to solve it for us.

Solve what? Something you can't define?
GreenMan wrote:
That will be easier than removing all of our baggage at one time. Or even lightening the load along the way just doesn't sound appealing to a nation that leads the world in fearlessness. Remember, fools dance where angels fear to tread.

Random phrases.
GreenMan wrote:
So what do you bring to the table? Do you have a solution for Climate Change that we can talk about?

There is NO 'solution' to something you can't define!


Global Warming is the reason why the earth is not 33C colder than it is right now.

This old number again? Argument from randU, based on another argument from randU. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
If it were not for Global Warming, the planet would be an ice ball,

Really??? The ISS is not an ice ball...the Moon is not an ice ball...not even Mars is an ice ball.
GreenMan wrote:
because the it is too far from the Sun to be as warm as it is

Mars is even further from the Sun. The Moon and the ISS are essentially the same distance from the Sun. The daylit side of the skin temperature of the ISS can reach 250 deg F. It has no Holy Gas keeping it warm. Why is Earth, with it's Holy Gas COLDER than the ISS during the day?
GreenMan wrote:
Some guy figured that out quite a long time ago,

Can you be a little more vague?
GreenMan wrote:
and it isn't even contested.

Argument of the Stone. The contest is right in front of you. I'm not the only one.
GreenMan wrote:
It has to do with math though, so you probably don't agree.

What math is that? Vague claims like this mean nothing.
GreenMan wrote:
Climate Change is a term being used to indicate that Global Warming is increasing, and that our climate is changing because of that.

So, 'climate change' is defined as 'climate change', using the intermediary undefined term 'global warming' to try to separate it.

Circular definition. Not allowed. You must define 'global warming' or 'climate change' using something other than a circular definition if you want to build any theory for it. No theory can exist based on a void argument.
GreenMan wrote:
It is a slow process, so it is difficult for some people to discern.

What process??? You haven't described one!
GreenMan wrote:
It's easier to see if you take snap shots over time for comparison.

Cameras don't measure temperature.
GreenMan wrote:
Of course, that is too complicated for some people, because they get confused about the type of photographic material that was available for use 100 years ago, when they first started taking snapshots, and they went from just black and white to color along the way, so the snapshots taken back then might be as clear as the ones taken recently.

I know the chemistry behind both types of film. I don't even see the point you are trying to make here. Are you trying to claim that it's possible to measure global temperature?
GreenMan wrote:
It doesn't mean that you have to do anything different. Those who make it through will know what caused the problem, and when they rebuild society, they will keep that in mind, and figure out some other way to generate energy.

Gasoline has the highest BTU per volume of any common chemical fuel. Kerosene has the highest BTU by weight. There is not substitute for these fuels. They are the best bang per buck. Why abandon them? Are you trying to make the case between 'evil' fuels and 'good' fuels?


The Parrot Killer
01-10-2017 10:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
ITN,
You've been in this forum for what ? 5 years? That's sad. It tells me that you don't have a life because this is it.

But I do. If you figure that length of time on a forum determines that, I would say it is YOU that probably has no life.


I think James is right, Parrot. Your activity here does indicate an obsession. You must spend most of your time normally spent working, to make all the posts you make. You might want to seek counseling, before this thing goes too far, and they have to admit you for treatment. I saw those episodes on House, where they had to admit him, and that didn't look like no fun. Maybe if you go now, they can start treatments right away, and do it outpatient.


HAHAHAHAHAHA! You have NO idea what I do or even what I accomplished just today!


The Parrot Killer
01-10-2017 11:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
climatesolutions wrote:
Stronger more frequent hurricanes for one ...


Hurricanes are not stronger or more frequent. You can look up the historical hurricane data from the National Hurricane Center.

Remember we went 12 years without a storm ever touching the United States mainland. That was blamed on 'global warming' too.


How could we forget that, with you Deniers using it to clobber poor ole Al Gore every time he opens his mouth, or makes another movie.

So you worship Al Gore, the Holy Son of the Church of Global Warming, politically crucified by the people, but rises from the dead from time to time to say something stupid?
GreenMan wrote:
What you guys like to do is forget about other things, like Harvey and Irma, both record breaking storms, and coming in so close together that they could have been siblings.

No, what YOU forget is the record itself. Just because a storm occurs does NOT mean 'global warming'. You idiots practically peed yourselves over Irma and the devastation you were hoping to have happen in Miami.
GreenMan wrote:
Some people just don't get it. It's like a comedy show.

You are no comedy show. You are a religion, trying to impose your religious view upon others by force.
GreenMan wrote:
They have to have a complete idiot around, to make everyone feel good about themselves.

Al Gore IS a complete idiot, that is true.
GreenMan wrote:
What would a Climate Change Debate Forum be, without some idiots taking the stupid side?

One sided.
GreenMan wrote:
Strange how there seems to be a few more idiots in this forum than the national average indicates there should be.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Argument from randU. You have no idea what the 'national average' of believers of the Church of Global Warming IS.


The Parrot Killer
01-10-2017 11:09
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:Circular definition. Not allowed.
Someone accurately named "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is NOT allowed to be judge, jury & executioner.
01-10-2017 12:26
climatesolutions
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Because storms didn't hit USA means nothing to me. Could care less about the USA actually. As a Canadian expat, I care about the innocent countries ...

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
climatesolutions wrote:
Stronger more frequent hurricanes for one ...


Hurricanes are not stronger or more frequent. You can look up the historical hurricane data from the National Hurricane Center.

Remember we went 12 years without a storm ever touching the United States mainland. That was blamed on 'global warming' too.


How could we forget that, with you Deniers using it to clobber poor ole Al Gore every time he opens his mouth, or makes another movie.

What you guys like to do is forget about other things, like Harvey and Irma, both record breaking storms, and coming in so close together that they could have been siblings.

Some people just don't get it. It's like a comedy show. They have to have a complete idiot around, to make everyone feel good about themselves. What would a Climate Change Debate Forum be, without some idiots taking the stupid side? Strange how there seems to be a few more idiots in this forum than the national average indicates there should be.
01-10-2017 13:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
climatesolutions wrote:
Because storms didn't hit USA means nothing to me. Could care less about the USA actually. As a Canadian expat, I care about the innocent countries ...

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
climatesolutions wrote:
Stronger more frequent hurricanes for one ...


Hurricanes are not stronger or more frequent. You can look up the historical hurricane data from the National Hurricane Center.

Remember we went 12 years without a storm ever touching the United States mainland. That was blamed on 'global warming' too.


How could we forget that, with you Deniers using it to clobber poor ole Al Gore every time he opens his mouth, or makes another movie.

What you guys like to do is forget about other things, like Harvey and Irma, both record breaking storms, and coming in so close together that they could have been siblings.

Some people just don't get it. It's like a comedy show. They have to have a complete idiot around, to make everyone feel good about themselves. What would a Climate Change Debate Forum be, without some idiots taking the stupid side? Strange how there seems to be a few more idiots in this forum than the national average indicates there should be.


Do you have evidence that suggests that the oveall amount of storms or the amount of energy in then has increased?

Given that we have yet to have this temperature rise why would any such increase be anything other than the normal level of variability of storms?

Can you cite some sort of science, physics type, paper which shows the mechanism for this supposed (well hyped) increase in storms?
01-10-2017 21:15
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:

Do you have evidence that suggests that the overall amount of storms or the amount of energy in then has increased?

Given that we have yet to have this temperature rise why would any such increase be anything other than the normal level of variability of storms?

Can you cite some sort of science, physics type, paper which shows the mechanism for this supposed (well hyped) increase in storms?


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php
01-10-2017 21:19
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Pourquoi tu ne comprends pas au revoir ?
Tu n'est pas tres intelligent ? Je sais, tu est un Americain, il est vrais ?

You really don't get it, do you ?
My post was in response to what Tim the Plumber asked. I thought it was a good question. He also did not ask anyone to elaborate, just post a link to some science that supports that person's opinion.
You're wanting control. Also people have committed suicide because of idiots like you. Kind of why I have absolutely no respect for you. That is something that should never be allowed.
And I have noticed that you're querying me rather than responding to Tim the Plumber's question. You need to stick to the topic.


Are you saying that ozone depletion is caused by CO2?

If so you must link to and quote from that link some sort of science that backs that.

Start from appreciating that I can understand basic science and can read a science paper.


CO2 supports the occurrence of stratospheric ozone. half way down the page.
Reducing CO2 levels now would most likely cause more serious problems than anything a little warming would cause. Crops and marine life would both be threatened. Today, not decades in the future.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Do We even want solve climate change?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Overpopulation - How not to solve the problem.12103-11-2015 06:04
Overpopulation - How to solve the problem..?3501-11-2015 17:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact