ADVERTISEMENT

Global Climate Changes

Storks are not relevant. Examples of a spurious correlation and a false generalization are relevant.

Yes. People are talking about redistribution of wealth in response to climate change and have been for the past 30 years. C’mon man!

Finally, acknowledging that there are real negative environmental impacts to human population growth and technological advances is not the issue. Mining for technology/energy is impactful. Leaching of solar panels, batteries, etc. Disposal of waste, including windmills. Impact on habitat and animal populations. Yes. If the temperature starts to drop, there will be a lot of environmental causes for people to politicize. Agreed.

Why am I arguing with you about this like you'd change your mind anyways? Im gonna work now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UKfan34
True. The gross generalization approach will not change my mind or make me believe you have a government solution. Have a good day!

You're kind of proving my point though. Not once did I mention a solution. Impossible to have an honest conversation on this topic when we can't establish a baseline for facts due to perceived agenda.

And now Im gonna work for real
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
Yikes.

Storks really aren't relevant here. Of course, you can find cases where humans restore ecosystems or positively impact an environment, but we are getting into minutia at that point. No one is talking about emotions or what is scary. No one is talking about redistribution of wealth. I am not even talking politics.

I think most people agree that human impact on environment, whether climate or any other type of negative impact, is a legitimate concern. It'd take quite a bit of effort to convince yourself otherwise given human population growth and the rate of industrialization / energy consumption. However, in the finely tuned political programming of 2022, many do not acknowledge adverse impact to environment because they assume that acknowledgement means they support "the libs" or whatever group they associate that with not because it's actually true.

It's also quite frankly easier to live life thinking humans aren't jeopardizing their own future. Most people will never be impacted by it and can do little to change it. So, what's the point?
Bbking for the Win!
 
You're kind of proving my point though. Not once did I mention a solution. Impossible to have an honest conversation on this topic when we can't establish a baseline for facts due to perceived agenda.

And now Im gonna work for real
Yeah, you said that I refuse solutions, as if solutions existed. If you mean something other than the government/political solutions that are repeated daily, then I am interested to hear what you mean by “solutions.”

I am sorry that I don’t buy your “proof” that says we are impacting the environment and therefore we are the cause of climate change or that this is a life-or-death problem. I don’t think your analysis is proof of either.

This has been described as an “existential threat.” If that were true, the excuses for not going nuclear, even in the short term, for energy would not exist.
 
Yeah, you said that I refuse solutions, as if solutions existed. If you mean something other than the government/political solutions that are repeated daily, then I am interested to hear what you mean by “solutions.”

I am sorry that I don’t buy your “proof” that says we are impacting the environment and therefore we are the cause of climate change or that this is a life-or-death problem. I don’t think your analysis is proof of either.

This has been described as an “existential threat.” If that were true, the excuses for not going nuclear, even in the short term, for energy would not exist.
Except I never said that, so your whole premise is incorrect. Again, not once did I mention solutions.
 
It is truly sad to me that Republicans led the way on environmentalism for decades and now reject it as a fallacy. Nixon created the EPA and signed the Clean Air and Water Act. Bush 1 ran on protecting the environment. The fact that people would willingly gobble up the BS put out there by the petroleum interests is a sign of how far we have fallen as a country.
 
That seems more like politics speaking than reason. Ignoring solutions, legislation or any other paradigms, it’s very easy to see how humans could adversely impact everything from climate to biodiversity
I admit it appears I misunderstood your point above as saying I was ignoring solutions.

There is a huge distinction between saying it is “easy to see how humans could adversely impact” climate to concluding the current climate trend is man-made. And, as stated, it is an even greater leap to say solutions exist. Ignoring proposed solutions gets us no where.

If I did not agree with your causation hypothesis, I still might agree to proposed solutions. If you said chewing a piece of gum every day would fix my arthritic pain, I may not believe you, but still could agree to the low cost proposed remedy. So, it is important to hear solutions, because they may not be disagreeable. If we just spent 400 billion toward nuclear development, I would probably be on board, because I see the benefits beyond the discussion subject.
 
I admit it appears I misunderstood your point above as saying I was ignoring solutions.

There is a huge distinction between saying it is “easy to see how humans could adversely impact” climate to concluding the current climate trend is man-made. And, as stated, it is an even greater leap to say solutions exist. Ignoring proposed solutions gets us no where.

If I did not agree with your causation hypothesis, I still might agree to proposed solutions. If you said chewing a piece of gum every day would fix my arthritic pain, I may not believe you, but still could agree to the low cost proposed remedy. So, it is important to hear solutions, because they may not be disagreeable. If we just spent 400 billion toward nuclear development, I would probably be on board, because I see the benefits beyond the discussion subject.
You wanna help your chronic joint inflammation:

1. Cold shower
2. Cold plunge
3. Meditate/pray 25 minutes a day
4. Yoga
5. Sauna
6. Eat an anti inflammatory diet. Mainly from god’s garden. Nothing fried. Replace chips with trail mix and blueberries, blackberries, oranges, pecans. Eat a little fish and a little eggs. Drink More water, less other fluid.
 
There is a huge distinction between saying it is “easy to see how humans could adversely impact” climate to concluding the current climate trend is man-made. And, as stated, it is an even greater leap to say solutions exist.
Perfectly stated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chroix
You wanna help your chronic joint inflammation:

1. Cold shower
2. Cold plunge
3. Meditate/pray 25 minutes a day
4. Yoga
5. Sauna
6. Eat an anti inflammatory diet. Mainly from god’s garden. Nothing fried. Replace chips with trail mix and blueberries, blackberries, oranges, pecans. Eat a little fish and a little eggs. Drink More water, less other fluid.
What if I have an RH factor?
 
What if I have an RH factor?
Dunno. If concerned, Ease into a 30 second cold shower at first and every week add 15 seconds until you can cold shower for 3 minutes.

ease into sauna for 5-10 minutes, until you can work your way up to 25 minutes

anyone can do yoga

everyone can eat cleaner

anyone can meditate and pray

You got this
 
It is truly sad to me that Republicans led the way on environmentalism for decades and now reject it as a fallacy. Nixon created the EPA and signed the Clean Air and Water Act. Bush 1 ran on protecting the environment. The fact that people would willingly gobble up the BS put out there by the petroleum interests is a sign of how far we have fallen as a country.
Just because someone doesn’t believe the govt can “fix” the climate doesn’t mean said person is against environmentalism. A ton of people on the right I know are huge conservationists and do what they can to take care of nature when they are out hiking or hunting and use as much of an animal as they can when killing one.

There’s nothing clean about how solar panels and wind mills are built or destroyed. And if you don’t think the govt avoiding nuclear generation in favor of solar/wind and battery storage technology that isn’t even close to adequate is anything but payouts to specific diners and/or money laundering, you are willfully ignorant.

We can’t run our grids on renewable energy right now. Anyone saying you can has zero knowledge of how energy works. By forcing this shift before the technology is ready, the govt is adding massive costs and hardships for no reason other than to send money to specific companies or groups. The end.
 
6194599c1d435.jpeg
 
Just because someone doesn’t believe the govt can “fix” the climate doesn’t mean said person is against environmentalism. A ton of people on the right I know are huge conservationists and do what they can to take care of nature when they are out hiking or hunting and use as much of an animal as they can when killing one.

There’s nothing clean about how solar panels and wind mills are built or destroyed. And if you don’t think the govt avoiding nuclear generation in favor of solar/wind and battery storage technology that isn’t even close to adequate is anything but payouts to specific diners and/or money laundering, you are willfully ignorant.

We can’t run our grids on renewable energy right now. Anyone saying you can has zero knowledge of how energy works. By forcing this shift before the technology is ready, the govt is adding massive costs and hardships for no reason other than to send money to specific companies or groups. The end.
It used to be part of the platform. Now they actively work against it.

Not sure where the rest of your post came from but I agree on about a lot of the logistical/technical stuff.
 
-one can be an environmentalist** without buying into alarmist dogma.

^when the "answer" is taxation* and oversight by international bureaucracy...those of us with a grasp of history are gonna be a bit skeptical.

*primarily aimed at western Europe and the US. It is 100% a wealth distribution scheme. The usual suspects will be in charge/benefit of course.

**the environmental movement was co-opted/moved hard left after the fall of the USSR. Prominent lefties in the west had to land somewhere after their ideal society collapsed. Green is the new red, as they say.

^none of this is to say we shouldn't take environmental issues seriously and take appropriate *measured* action. Collapsing our economy ceding control to the international bureaucrat class is not the answer...it's suicide. Yet here we are.
 
Last edited:
It used to be part of the platform. Now they actively work against it.

Not sure where the rest of your post came from but I agree on about a lot of the logistical/technical stuff.
Again, not being pro Green New Deal or trusting the govt to tax-and-fix something as complex as our climate is in no way the same as being anti-environment.
 
Last edited:
Again, not being pro Green New Deal or trusting the govt to tax-and-fix something as complex as our climate is in no way the same as being anti-environment.
Yep, I’m pro green, Christian, and born and raised to vote republican.
 
There are certain truths that apply to both sides and are universal:

Literally NO ONE is against helping/improving the environment.

Related to that... NO ONE is against "Green Energy" as a concept.


Then there are certain truths that should be universal... but maybe aren't:

There's no point in getting rid of a energy source unless a cost-comparable, plentiful alternative is readily available (especially when said energy source is one the most cost effective per BTU).

Science... and scientists? If I pay you enough money, I can get you you to say ANYTHING.

Once folks (liberals) understand these facts, we can move forward at a MUCH faster pace IMO. Until then... waste of time even discussing it...
 

Read the article.
Assuming this isn't garbage research...

Get India (and China) to stop polluting.

Problem solved... get back to us when that happens lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhDcat2018
Yep, I’m pro green, Christian, and born and raised to vote republican.
And?
Taking care of the environment does not require giving more money to the govt to fix it. If you disagree, that’s fine. Personally I don’t think the govt can fix much of anything, certainly not the environment. And thinking that way doesn’t make me love nature any less.
 
-one can be an environmentalist** without buying into alarmist dogma.

^when the "answer" is taxation* and oversight by international bureaucracy...those of us with a grasp of history are gonna be a bit skeptical.

*primarily aimed at western Europe and the US. It is 100% a wealth distribution scheme. The usual suspects will be in charge/benefit of course.

**the environmental movement was co-opted/moved hard left after the fall of the USSR. Prominent lefties in the west had to land somewhere after their ideal society collapsed. Green is the new red, as they say.

^none of this is to say we shouldn't take environmental issues seriously and take appropriate *measured* action. Collapsing our economy ceding control to the international bureaucrat class is not the answer...it's suicide. Yet here we are.
Excellent. Libs are very good at taking actual problems and co-opting them for their socialist dreams. (see covid, climate, etc).

Never let a good crisis go to waste, as they say.
 
Again, not being pro Green New Deal or trusting the govt to tax-and-fix something as complex as our climate is in no way the same as being anti-environment.

There is a difference between pro the items you listed and anti regulation. It’s not a binary choice. And I’m not advocating for democrat policies, simply lamenting the Republican parties shift away from the issue.
 
There are certain truths that apply to both sides and are universal:

Literally NO ONE is against helping/improving the environment.

Related to that... NO ONE is against "Green Energy" as a concept.


Then there are certain truths that should be universal... but maybe aren't:

There's no point in getting rid of a energy source unless a cost-comparable, plentiful alternative is readily available (especially when said energy source is one the most cost effective per BTU).

Science... and scientists? If I pay you enough money, I can get you you to say ANYTHING.

Once folks (liberals) understand these facts, we can move forward at a MUCH faster pace IMO. Until then... waste of time even discussing it...

There are plenty of businesses that destroy the environment and could give a damn. The idea that no one is against improving the climate is ridiculous. If this were not the case there’d be no issue in the first place.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
Page 12 and counting . . . .

Anyone change their mind yet or learn anything new (that they are willing to admit to publicly, I should add)?

Actually yes. I was a little skeptical but leaning towards environmental measures as I saw first hand what some of these companies left unchecked did to the land around them(grew up in WV). However some of these posts have made me double think that as some posters have brought up great points. Although like a unicorn there are some open minded moderates like us around!
 
  • Like
Reactions: chroix
Few things wrong here.

1) Earth’s climate changing many times “naturally” actually reinforces the reality that changes in environmental factors affects climate.

2) Human impact on environment is not small and stating that is not hubris. Look at pictures of earth from space and how much of the planet has light at night. How many other organisms have this impact? How many other organisms cause smog in LA or leave islands of plastic in the Pacific? Or cause mass extinction due to elimination of biomes?

3) Regardless of any event being attributed or not attributed to climate change, no one can deny humans are causing changes to the environment and usually doing so negatively.

4) Given the mass impact of humans on the planet, impact on environment is and should be a real concern. If we detach from political positions and cliche arguments, impossible to deny this.
1. Try looking into the amount of greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere by volcanic activity. It dwarfs human activity.
2. Ever heard of red tides? Massive colonies of harmful red algae that are visible from space. They also kill ocean based life on a massive scale.
3 and 4. Your agenda is showing. Fossil fuels have been the engine of progress across the globe for over 100 years. More people have risen out of poverty due to fossil fuels than by any other single advancement. Fossil fuels have provided easy and cheap access to food, medicine, tools of industry and allowed population movements on a scale entirely impossible before the combustion engine. It is most likely impossible to put a number on how many lives have been saved by fossil fuels. And we haven't even begun to discuss the improvements to human quality of life afforded by plastics, polymers and solvents.
Humans aren't going anywhere and neither are fossil fuels and their petroleum derivatives.
 
It is truly sad to me that Republicans led the way on environmentalism for decades and now reject it as a fallacy. Nixon created the EPA and signed the Clean Air and Water Act. Bush 1 ran on protecting the environment. The fact that people would willingly gobble up the BS put out there by the petroleum interests is a sign of how far we have fallen as a country.
Tell you what...you get money and politics out of climate science and I'll give it a look.
Under no circumstances was the EPA was created to have imminent domain over private farm lands and levy taxes based on an entirely arbitrary formula to calculate an individual's carbon output.
Show me a plan to SLOWLY migrate from reliance on fossil fuels to supply the national power grid over say, a 50-100 time frame and I'll be on board. Stop the constant brow-beating of completely artificial deadlines to meet certain standards or the world is gonna end crap. People always respond negatively to that stuff.
Lastly, show me how India and China are EVER going to be on board with reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions and I'll take be ready to sign up. Both have ZERO interests in curbing anything and it is economic suicide for the US to try and go it alone.
 
1. Try looking into the amount of greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere by volcanic activity. It dwarfs human activity.
2. Ever heard of red tides? Massive colonies of harmful red algae that are visible from space. They also kill ocean based life on a massive scale.
3 and 4. Your agenda is showing. Fossil fuels have been the engine of progress across the globe for over 100 years. More people have risen out of poverty due to fossil fuels than by any other single advancement. Fossil fuels have provided easy and cheap access to food, medicine, tools of industry and allowed population movements on a scale entirely impossible before the combustion engine. It is most likely impossible to put a number on how many lives have been saved by fossil fuels. And we haven't even begun to discuss the improvements to human quality of life afforded by plastics, polymers and solvents.
Humans aren't going anywhere and neither are fossil fuels and their petroleum derivatives.
One is easy because it’s incorrect.


And again, arguing that other factors alter climate actually reinforces the sensitivity of the climate.

This isn’t an argument on benefits of consuming energy. No one needs to be sold on why electricity is helpful. I think you can draw the conclusion of what that means.
 
NASA scientists and others using data from NASA and our partner satellites have shown that air pollution levels dropped significantly during COVID-19. A new, NASA-funded study, conducted by scientists at The George Washington University (GW) in Washington, D.C., zoomed in on the 15 largest metropolitan areas in the United States to see how the drop in air pollution differed from neighborhood to neighborhood. The paper was published July 20 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.



We talked to the lead author on the study, Gaige Kerr, about how the COVID-19 pandemic led to better air quality – and how those improvements were unequal for people of different races, ethnicities and socioeconomic levels. Kerr is a research scientist at GW. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity.





What is nitrogen dioxide and how is it related to air quality?



Nitrogen dioxide, or NO2, is a trace gas in the atmosphere. It’s one of the six air pollutants regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act. Even though NO2 is only present in small amounts, it’s very harmful for human health and can trigger respiratory illnesses like asthma. NO2 also leads to the formation of ozone near Earth’s surface, another harmful air pollutant.



NO2 can come from natural things like lightning or microbes in the soil. But in cities, the majority of NO2 stems from human activity and fossil fuel combustion. Roughly 50% of the ambient NO2 comes from traffic emissions. The other large sources come from power plants, incinerators and factories.





What happened with NO2 levels when the COVID-19 pandemic triggered lockdowns in March 2020?



During COVID, we had the opportunity to see how taking many cars off of the road and planes out of the skies affected air pollution in the real world in this unintended experiment. We know from past research that there are NO2 pollution disparities based on several factors – most notably race, ethnicity and income – and that communities of color and lower socioeconomic status face much higher concentrations of NO2. So, we wanted to understand how this unprecedented, extraordinary drop in human activity and emissions impacted NO2 disparities.



In cities, NO2 levels plummeted at first. That had a lot to do with the drop in traffic and travel, since vehicle traffic is the largest contributor to NO2 in cities. We saw widespread decreases in NO2 across urban areas in the United States during the pandemic, but the magnitude varied. NO2 levels dropped by about 10% to 35% on average, depending on the city. New York City and Los Angeles had very large drops, but NO2 disparities across different racial, ethnic and socioeconomic groups were very large in these cities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bkingUK
Tell you what...you get money and politics out of climate science and I'll give it a look.
Under no circumstances was the EPA was created to have imminent domain over private farm lands and levy taxes based on an entirely arbitrary formula to calculate an individual's carbon output.
Show me a plan to SLOWLY migrate from reliance on fossil fuels to supply the national power grid over say, a 50-100 time frame and I'll be on board. Stop the constant brow-beating of completely artificial deadlines to meet certain standards or the world is gonna end crap. People always respond negatively to that stuff.
Lastly, show me how India and China are EVER going to be on board with reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions and I'll take be ready to sign up. Both have ZERO interests in curbing anything and it is economic suicide for the US to try and go it alone.

So your attitude is to wait until circumstances match up to your personal criteria before you’ll even pay attention. Got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
1. Try looking into the amount of greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere by volcanic activity. It dwarfs human activity.
2. Ever heard of red tides? Massive colonies of harmful red algae that are visible from space. They also kill ocean based life on a massive scale.
3 and 4. Your agenda is showing. Fossil fuels have been the engine of progress across the globe for over 100 years. More people have risen out of poverty due to fossil fuels than by any other single advancement. Fossil fuels have provided easy and cheap access to food, medicine, tools of industry and allowed population movements on a scale entirely impossible before the combustion engine. It is most likely impossible to put a number on how many lives have been saved by fossil fuels. And we haven't even begun to discuss the improvements to human quality of life afforded by plastics, polymers and solvents.
Humans aren't going anywhere and neither are fossil fuels and their petroleum derivatives.

1. Can’t control volcanoes. Can control human behavior and consumption. Slight difference in the two.

2. Red tides are supercharged by fertilizer runoff from agriculture. We’ll known and documented. You should do more research.

3 & 4. Things change and evolve. It is the natural order. People burned dung for heat at one point. Why would we not continue to progress? Why would we not look for sustainable solutions and alternatives to petroleum?

You a Saudi? You seem really into oil.
 
1. Can’t control volcanoes. Can control human behavior and consumption. Slight difference in the two.

2. Red tides are supercharged by fertilizer runoff from agriculture. We’ll known and documented. You should do more research.

3 & 4. Things change and evolve. It is the natural order. People burned dung for heat at one point. Why would we not continue to progress? Why would we not look for sustainable solutions and alternatives to petroleum?

You a Saudi? You seem really into oil.
1. You should be far more concerned about the amount of greenhouse gases deposited in the atmosphere by volcanoes than by humans. Big difference in the threat posed by one versus another.

2. Coastal runoff may contribute some to the formation of red tides but, they are not exclusive to areas impacted by runoff. You should do more research.

3. Things always change and evolve. But, not at a breakneck speed with an entire industry being essentially created and subsidized by government. Additionally, the near total dependence on China for solar and wind power components is, I think you'll agree, problematic at best.
88% of the US electrical grid is powered by fossil fuels. You don't get away from those numbers by forcing a oppresive green policy on the population. You slowly transition over to renewables over time to minimize impact and cost while making maximum use of technological advancements along the way.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT