You realize this is bad, the study actually agrees with climate scientists and disagrees with you, right? It goes on to suggest they are UNDERESTIMATING the consequences of climate change. No hoax, this case shows what has historically happened when there were temperatures similar to now and what can be expected.
“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson
I don’t think anyone would/could argue against global warming or climate change. The topic that causes debate is the effect humans have on it. Are humans causing an increase in the speed in which the global climate is changing?
I at least feel the Trump administration is going to actually move forward with science based policies in regards to global climate change. Even the soon to be head of DOE agrees that man is at least partially to blame for GCC.
I don’t think the argument has been made that man can STOP global climate change. The question would be, is there something that can be done to reduce mans influence on it?
Arguing with stupid makes me tired, but I am feeling punchy today so I will bite.
If you agree, like most of published science, that man has contributed to global warming:
We can identify the likely causes and try to limit them incrementally. I think its worthwhile to reduce air pollution and at least ATTEMPT to address the issue, considering the impact. Carbon credits are a scam, but finding ways to either incentivize reduction in pollution through extra $, or penalize excess pollution through $ penalties would be good. The market does not respond to this well on its own because the benefits (energy sales) are privatized and the negative effects (pollution) are socialized… there is little financial incentive to behave responsibly otherwise.
If your head is so far under the sand that you can’t begin to understand how digging up millions of years of carbon (35 billion barrels of oil per year) and poofing it up into the stratosphere could possibly affect anything… IE assuming that it is “just natural” for the sake of argument, despite the scientific community’s long and detailed stance:
Even if we make ZERO impact on climate, there are significant side benefits like creating new kinds of high paying energy jobs (tech sector, installation, construction), improved infrastructure, and improving air quality in population centers and industrial centers.
As for “can we even make an impact??” - we have done some amazing stuff. Sent people to the moon. Dug a mine almost 3 miles across and 3/4 mile deep. Tunneled through mountains to put in roadways. Developed supercomputers from abacus to “Watson” in less than seventy years. Sent a man in a sub 6.8 miles underwater to the bottom of the deepest hole on the planet. Surely we have some technology and capacity to give it a shot?
Would you just lie down if an asteroid was very slowly heading towards earth? Or would yo
man is the only species that has done the Earth not one single favor…our goal should be simple…how can we cause less harm? I don’t care if cow farts have added a billion tons of methane to the atmosphere for the last 2 million years, if man adds half a billion, then let’s figure out how to reduce that…
Man’s effect on global warming is like cutting the faucet on in your sink at full blast, and then worried that it’s going to overflow because “man” added a drop of water out of an eye dropper.
Arguing with stupid makes me tired, but I am feeling punchy today so I will bite.
If you agree, like most of published science, that man has contributed to global warming:
We can identify the likely causes and try to limit them incrementally. </font id=“size3”> I think its worthwhile to reduce air pollution and at least ATTEMPT to address the issue, considering the impact. Carbon credits are a scam, but finding ways to either incentivize reduction in pollution through extra $, or penalize excess pollution through $ penalties would be good. The market does not respond to this well on its own because the benefits (energy sales) are privatized and the negative effects (pollution) are socialized… there is little financial incentive to behave responsibly otherwise.
If your head is so far under the sand that you can’t begin to understand how digging up millions of years of carbon (35 billion barrels of oil per year) and poofing it up into the stratosphere could possibly affect anything… IE assuming that it is “just natural” for the sake of argument, despite the scientific community’s long and detailed stance:
Even if we make ZERO impact on climate, there are significant side benefits like creating new kinds of high paying energy jobs (tech sector, installation, construction), improved infrastructure, and improving air quality in population centers and industrial centers.
As for “can we even make an impact??” - we have done some amazing stuff. Sent people to the moon. Dug a mine almost 3 miles across and 3/4 mile deep. Tunneled through mountains to put in roadways. Developed supercomputers from abacus to “Watson” in less than seventy years. Sent a man in a sub 6.8 miles underwater to
quote:Originally posted by Fishb8maybe, likely, possible are not science.
Yes they are.
Meteorology is science based on predictive modeling for weather.
Geology + anthropology + archeology work on predictive carbon dating models, inference, and association in absence of proof.
Biology and organic chemistry work on predictive modeling for genetics, drug interactions.
There is a whole field of science in quantum physics and computing that can’t actually be measured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
Just some examples off the top of my head.
I am sure you are smarter and more knowledgeable than everyone in those fields - so I am afraid I can’t help ya.
I know I am not smarter in those fields. But also know scientist do not agree. so you pick a side. I believe this rock has survived long enough that our extremely small number of years on, is doubtful to destroy it. our scientist use 100 years (or so) as a predictive pattern. that is like using a single person as a predictive measure of how every human will act.
I’m not a scientist, as a matter fact it was my worst subject in school. So I’ll try to explain this in simple terms.
It’s a nice a fall day. You get home after work. The temp is starting to drop a bit, but it’s a nice 70 degrees inside.
You turn on the lights and TV. Turn on the stove to start making dinner. Open the door to the frig a couple times to get stuff out and you hear the compressor kick on.
The next thing you know you hear the A/C start, your thermostat is set at 72.
“Simple is as simple does” – Forrest Gump smartest man I know.
Meteorology is science based on predictive modeling for weather.
Geology + anthropology + archeology work on predictive carbon dating models, inference, and association in absence of proof.
Biology and organic chemistry work on predictive modeling for genetics, drug interactions.
There is a whole field of science in quantum physics and computing that can’t actually be measured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
Just some examples off the top of my head.
I am sure you are smarter and more knowledgeable than everyone in those fields - so I am afraid I can’t help ya.
[quote]
"Metrology is the science of measurement and includes all theoretical and practical aspects of measurement.
Metrology is defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) as “the science of measurement, embracing both experimental and theoretical determinations at any level of uncertainty in any field of science and technology”
man is the only species that has done the Earth not one single favor…our goal should be simple…how can we cause less harm? I don’t care if cow farts have added a billion tons of methane to the atmosphere for the last 2 million years, if man adds half a billion, then let’s figure out how to reduce that…
Remember the billion buffalo early Americans slaughtered? That has given us our carbon credits for the next 500 years.
We are coming out of an Ice age and our Climate will warm up. If not that means Earth is cooling off and dieing. In that case man needs to make some extra green house gases.
“If Bruce Jenner can keep his wiener and be called a woman, I can keep my firearms and be considered disarmed.”
Meteorology is science based on predictive modeling for weather.
Geology + anthropology + archeology work on predictive carbon dating models, inference, and association in absence of proof.
Biology and organic chemistry work on predictive modeling for genetics, drug interactions.
There is a whole field of science in quantum physics and computing that can’t actually be measured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
Just some examples off the top of my head.
I am sure you are smarter and more knowledgeable than everyone in those fields - so I am afraid I can’t help ya.
[quote]
"Metrology is the science of measurement and includes all theoretical and practical aspects of measurement.
Metrology is defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) as “the science of measurement, embracing both experimental and theoretical determinations at any level of uncertainty in any field of science and technology”
War Eagle 115 yamaha 4 stroke
Bo, you are missing some letters if you are trying to figure out whether or not metEOrology uses predictions…