....and it's coming to change our coastlines and flood our cities, how come climate change alarmist President Obama just retired to a multi-million dollar beach house located mere yards from the ocean?
Are you trying to bait people?
If it's real? :question:
I won't even go into why Global Warming is real or not, because arguing the point with someone on the issue is like talking to a doorknob.
Oh- to answer your question- because he can.
Why does Trump want to buy Greenland? Because the ice is melting, which will make it easier to dig for that oil!
I'm curious for opinions. To me retiring to a reportedly vanishing shoreline seems the ultimate vote in a lack of confidence in the doctrine upon which Barack Obama has made millions speaking about.
So, do you have an opinion, Misfit, or did you just come here to troll me?
Quote from: RCMerchant on August 23, 2019, 02:28:59 PM
If it's real? :question:
Oh- to answer your question- because he can.
Why does Trump want to buy Greenland? Because the ice is melting, which will make it easier to dig for that oil!
That may be, but did you know Harry Truman tried to buy Greenland back circa 1950? Was the ice melting then too?
Quote from: ER on August 23, 2019, 02:32:53 PM
Quote from: RCMerchant on August 23, 2019, 02:28:59 PM
If it's real? :question:
Oh- to answer your question- because he can.
Why does Trump want to buy Greenland? Because the ice is melting, which will make it easier to dig for that oil!
That may be, but did you know Harry Truman tried to buy Greenland back circa 1950? Was the ice melting then too?
Your avoiding the issue. Obama can move if his house floods. He can afford it.
And it likely won't happen in his lifetime. Don't start s**t.
Truman may have wanted it because of a real Cold War threat. Trump just want's to exploit it.
Starting s**t? So you yourself can ask some of the most loaded and personal questions known to the internet, but if I ask for an explanation of why a man who talks about our eroding coastlines moves to one for what he says is his retirement, which presumably is decades to come, it's "starting" something? We should be able to consider a non-personal question without it making anyone mad. Why does the subject make you mad? It doesn't make me mad. Sven has addressed climate change multiple times, including twice yesterday. Was that starting something? No, I'm not starting anything, just curious what others might think. Thanks for your answer. I appreciate it.
Quote from: ER on August 23, 2019, 02:41:55 PM
Starting s**t? So you yourself can ask some of the most loaded and personal questions known to the internet, but if I ask for an explanation of why a man who talks about our eroding coastlines moves to one for what he says is his retirement, which presumably is decades to come, it's "starting" something? We should be able to consider a non-personal question without it making anyone mad. Why does the subject make you mad? It doesn't make me mad. Sven has addressed climate change multiple times, including twice yesterday. Was that starting something? No, I'm not starting anything, just curious what others might think. Thanks for your answer. I appreciate it.
Your welcome. Always glad to oblige.
You worded your question in a condescending manner imo. You could have said "Why did Barrack Obama retire to a beach house when he has been vocal about global warming/global climate change?"
Hypocrisy ignites my condescension.
Because sea levels are only projected to rise three-quarters of an inch per year, meaning they would take almost 50 years to advance one yard.
Beachfront properties aren't likely to become flooded within our lifetimes. That doesn't imply climate change won't have serious long term ecological and economic consequences 100 years from now. I agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, and yet I'd happily buy a house on the beach if I had the disposable income. I don't see even the slightest hint of hypocrisy there.
Quote from: ER on August 23, 2019, 02:49:05 PM
Hypocrisy ignites my condescension.
Where's the hypocrisy?
Is is in a gaudy multi-millionaire TV show guy who is supposed to be for the working class, and just exploits their fears? And want's to buy a
country, who doesn't even like him, to exploit the natural resources there, and make a pocketful of money? And then throws a hissy fit when Denmark won't sell it to him by cancelling a visit to Denmark? Or maybe it's when the President of the United States calls Nazi's " good people" and yet tells Jews " Support me!". Hmmm...
It's interesting you keep bringing President Trump into this. You may have points to make about him, but my question was about the seeming disparity between what President Obama says and what he does. Trump and Obama are two different people. President Obama gave a speech entitled Coastlines in Crisis, and then he moves to one supposedly for the rest of his life? See, to me that's hypocritical and worth pointing out. Does Obama have confidence that coastline will be there for the foreseeable future, or does he believe what he talked about on numerous occasions, concerning coastlines eroding in the near future? I wouldn't build my dream home on a flood plane or an eroding coast.
Eight years, people kept telling me I was being paranoid...
Funny how it's come a full 360...
Quote from: ER on August 23, 2019, 03:01:39 PM
It's interesting you keep bringing President Trump into this. You may have points to make about him, but my question was about the seeming disparity between what President Obama says and what he does. Trump and Obama are two different people. President Obama gave a speech entitled Coastlines in Crisis, and then he moves to one supposedly for the rest of his life? See, to me that's hypocritical and worth pointing out. Does Obama have confidence that coastline will be there for the foreseeable future, or does he believe what he talked about on numerous occasions, concerning coastlines eroding in the near future? I wouldn't build my dream home on a flood plane or an eroding coast.
As I said above, I don't see any hypocrisy at all. I suspect you are adopting a different sense of scale than Obama is. "Foreseeable future" and "near future" aren't precise terms. 100 years is the "near future" if you're taking a generational perspective. I can't find the text (or any mention) of such a speech. If Obama said that the coastline would advance several feet per year, then yes, he would be guilty of exaggeration. But as I pointed out, scientists say coastlines are advancing less than an inch per year. I can't see any hypocrisy involved in buying beachfront property while still accepting the scientific consensus that sea levels are rising and we need to halt or reverse the trend or accept bad consequences.
And if Obama believed the property might be underwater in 100 or 200 years, how would that be hypcrisy? At worst it would be a bad long term investment.
The thread is titled "If Global Warming Is Real..."
Do you think it is?
It's not "global warming" anymore. It's global climate change. And yes. It's happening and our greenhouse gasses are causing it.
Y'know, I understand AlGore did the same thing...
After saying it wouldn't be there in ten years, he built a place in Montecito, where a lot of other left wing alarmist parrots live...
I dunno, maybe they've all got some kooky notion that the frequent mudslides will eventually compensate for the rising sea levels & beach erosion...
Quote from: Rev. Powell on August 23, 2019, 02:54:43 PM
Because sea levels are only projected to rise three-quarters of an inch per year, meaning they would take almost 50 years to advance one yard.
Beachfront properties aren't likely to become flooded within our lifetimes. That doesn't imply climate change won't have serious long term ecological and economic consequences 100 years from now. I agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, and yet I'd happily buy a house on the beach if I had the disposable income. I don't see even the slightest hint of hypocrisy there.
Thanks! Somebody needed to say that.
Why is it left and right on this?
It's been happening at a slow rate since the industrial revolution. The ozone has been depleting for a looong time. We just have the scientific knowledge to figure this s**t out recently.
As far as Al Gore-I never seen his movie.I reckon he was trying to scare people into thinking it was gonna happen tommorow if they didn't elect him. Politics bulls**t.
I ain't for the left or right.
Quote from: RCMerchant on August 23, 2019, 04:26:04 PM
Why is it left and right on this?
It's been happening at a slow rate since the industrial revolution. The ozone has been depleting for a looong time. We just have the scientific knowledge to figure this s**t out recently.
As far as Al Gore-I never seen his movie.
Well said.
As for
AL GORE's movie... I've owned it many years... still sealed in the shrinkwrap! :teddyr: :lookingup:
Quote from: RCMerchant on August 23, 2019, 04:26:04 PM
Why is it left and right on this?
It's been happening at a slow rate since the industrial revolution. The ozone has been depleting for a looong time. We just have the scientific knowledge to figure this s**t out recently.
As far as Al Gore-I never seen his movie.I reckon he was trying to scare people into thinking it was gonna happen tommorow if they didn't elect him. Politics bulls**t.
I ain't for the left or right.
As near as I can tell it goes back to the Kyoto protocol in 1992. It was a flawed deal Bill Clinton favored to try to curb greenhouse gasses, one that would have hurt American energy companies while letting China off the hook. At the time, the science was less settled than it is now. So to oppose it, Republicans took the strategy that the science was inconclusive and it would be unwise to take radical action. As more evidence came in and even most conservatives were forced to accept the reality of climate change, some hardliners continued to double down on denialism, or just move the goalposts (sure, it's happening, but it's just a natural cycle, not something we're activey contributing to).
To be fair, liberal conservationists are often alarmists, which made it credible to think they'd be exaggerating (the boy who cried wolf syndrome).
In the end, the only ones who actually benefit from climate change denialism are energy companies that depend on fossil fuels for short term profits. Even they realize that they have to move to better solutions to remain viable in the long term, which is why we have hybrid cars and electric cars on the horizon.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on August 23, 2019, 04:41:03 PM
Quote from: RCMerchant on August 23, 2019, 04:26:04 PM
Why is it left and right on this?
It's been happening at a slow rate since the industrial revolution. The ozone has been depleting for a looong time. We just have the scientific knowledge to figure this s**t out recently.
As far as Al Gore-I never seen his movie.I reckon he was trying to scare people into thinking it was gonna happen tommorow if they didn't elect him. Politics bulls**t.
I ain't for the left or right.
As near as I can tell it goes back to the Kyoto protocol in 1992. It was a flawed deal Bill Clinton favored to try to curb greenhouse gasses, one that would have hurt American energy companies while letting China off the hook. At the time, the science was less settled than it is now. So to oppose it, Republicans took the strategy that the science was inconclusive and it would be unwise to take radical action. As more evidence came in and even most conservatives were forced to accept the reality of climate change, some hardliners continued to double down on denialism, or just move the goalposts (sure, it's happening, but it's just a natural cycle, not something we're activey contributing to).
To be fair, liberal conservationists are often alarmists, which made it credible to think they'd be exaggerating (the boy who cried wolf syndrome).
In the end, the only ones who actually benefit from climate change denialism are energy companies that depend on fossil fuels for short term profits. Even they realize that they have to move to better solutions to remain viable in the long term, which is why we have hybrid cars and electric cars on the horizon.
You kind of put your finger on a big problem, rev. Kyoto
was a "flawed deal" but it was still better than no deal at all. I think americans have reached a point where if something isn't perfect, absolute 100 percent to our liking, as a nation and as individuals, we say "NU-UH! Want Better! Not gonna take it!"
honestly a lot of americans seem to be this way now. I mean, look at 2016. Hillary wasn't perfect, a lotta people wanted bernie or bust. So them stamped their feet, shook their fists and screamed "NOT GONNA VOTE HILLARY! NOT GONNA! NOT GONNA! NOT GONNA!"
Half a loaf wasn't good enough, so we all got a whole loaf of toxic waste, radioactive sludge and ground glass.
Americans are suffering from the "Nirvana fallacy", a logical fallacy that basically says if a solution isn't perfect it's no good at all.
And it's hurting us terribly. Americans have gotten so used to being catered to by businesses that promise perfect this and perfect that they don;t know how to settle for good enough anymore.
Quote from: LilCerberus on August 23, 2019, 04:21:56 PM
Y'know, I understand AlGore did the same thing...
After saying it wouldn't be there in ten years, he built a place in Montecito, where a lot of other left wing alarmist parrots live...
I dunno, maybe they've all got some kooky notion that the frequent mudslides will eventually compensate for the rising sea levels & beach erosion...
Or maybe he wanted to document the rise of sear levels from a piece of land on the front lines.
One reason I'm a left leaning progressive is that the right is utterly owned by Big Business and utterly incapable of taking a stand that isn't in the interests of big business on every single issue.
No matter what an issue is, no matter what the subject, if BigBiz profits are affected by it conservatives will instantly, automatically, robotically come down on the side of corporate profits regardless of any and all other factors.
Also as soon as an issue that involves bigbiz comes up each and every conservative in sight will instantly declare himself an expert on the matter no matter what the subject is. Conservatives who wouldn't know dioxin from silly putty instantly become experts on chemistry and human biology when bigbiz wants to dump toxic waste in water, and they just know the levels bigbiz wants to dump are safe for humans no matter what they are.
it was 100% certain that on climate change the consies would come down on bigbiz profit's side. Even if the future of humanity was at stake.
I don't even bother listening to conservatives on issues anymore, their opinions are as predictable as a loaded dice.
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on August 23, 2019, 05:34:53 PM
One reason I'm a left leaning progressive is that the right is utterly owned by Big Business and utterly incapable of taking a stand that isn't in the interests of big business on every single issue.
No matter what an issue is, no matter what the subject, if BigBiz profits are affected by it conservatives will instantly, automatically, robotically come down on the side of corporate profits regardless of any and all other factors.
Also as soon as an issue that involves bigbiz comes up each and every conservative in sight will instantly declare himself an expert on the matter no matter what the subject is. Conservatives who wouldn't know dioxin from silly putty instantly become experts on chemistry and human biology when bigbiz wants to dump toxic waste in water, and they just know the levels bigbiz wants to dump are safe for humans no matter what they are.
it was 100% certain that on climate change the consies would come down on bigbiz profit's side. Even if the future of humanity was at stake.
I don't even bother listening to conservatives on issues anymore, their opinions are as predictable as a loaded dice.
"How absurd," said the gnat to the gnu,
"To spell your queer name as you do!"
"For the matter of that,"
Said the gnu to the gnat,
"That's just as I feel about you." - Oliver Herford
(https://i.imgur.com/3QSm5hS.jpg)
Quote from: RCMerchant on August 23, 2019, 04:13:37 PM
The thread is titled "If Global Warming Is Real..."
Do you think it is?
I don't know, RC, it may be.
Back around early 2008 I saw
An Inconvenient Truth at an art theater and it seemed conclusive, case made, the planet was warming and we were behind it, but then I heard rebuttals that also seemed intelligent and nearly as conclusive. In the '00s a former poster here who had multiple Ph.Ds used to make an eloquent case against climate change, as some of the vets might remember, and his posts are likely still on this site to be read if anyone wants to dig them up.
For a moment I had an interest in the issue until around the time of the Presidential election in '08 when it became so viciously politicized I turned my back on it since it somehow became an issue that a lot of people didn't seem able to discuss without arguing. I was also bothered by some people's almost religious faith in science to the point of all dissent from their dogma being treated like heresy. Science is not supposed to be about blind faith or inquisitions. The fact it is presented that way in the 21st century is one reason I did not go on and get my doctorate in biology. Science departments are closed-minded places, believe me.
I do think there is a lot of hyperbole on both sides (all sides) of the issue, and no one does his case a favor by becoming an alarmist.
When I was in middle school we went to a presentation that showed London and New York underwater and we were told that by the time our children were in middle school we'd have Spanish moss on our trees here and our weather would be like what New Orleans' was then. Well my oldest daughter will be middle school-age next year and we don't have Spanish moss and we had two of the coldest winters on record recently, which doesn't argue for the credibility of people from Ohio State who came to school that long ago day and got a lot of kids upset.
As for cities being underwater, the opposite is happening and there is widespread reclamation from the oceans now in the Netherlands, Monaco, Nigeria and even India, recapturing land from the seas. New Orleans is under sea level and when the occasional one-eyed witch doesn't roll over the region, it's still dry. Havana has expanded its waterfront. Lowered (not raised) sea levels in South America recently resulted in a discovery of a campsite so early in the timeline that the story of human migration into the hemisphere may have to be re-written.
Mars is also getting warmer, did you know that? And Mars hasn't had a person living there since the US Civil War. (Come on, easy reference....)
Whatever the truth of this, it's a shame people are willing to exploit hysteria pro and con for their own ends. Ultimately time will make the case.
I appreciate the opinions here, and I'm glad this didn't degenerate into a flame war. Maybe I could have introduced the topic with more tact, it's true, but somehow hearing about that beach side house from a man who made his bones scaring audiences about the state of crisis we're supposedly living in honestly bothered me, and wasn't political.
PS: Rev, your "bad investment" quip cracked me up. As usual the wittiest statement belonged to you. Everyone take care.
Well OK I'm going to make my case for man aggravated climate change like this, in what I hope in a non flame fashion.
There are toxins so deadly to humans an amount of them barely visible to the human eye can kill an adult. Thatcs a fact. I have heard high grade, military sarin can be lethal in almost microscopic amounts.
Now if a tiny droplet of sarin can kill an adult human, look at the countless millions of tons of gasses humans have bumped in tom the earth's atmosphere since the industrial regulation.
Look at the forests we've replaced with cities.
Look at the damage we've done to the oceans with massive pollution.
If a barely visible speck of sarin or ricing can kill an adult man can yoiu honestly say that the megatons of pollution we've out in the air and water and land can't have an adverse effect on even something as big as earth?
I think that's a pretty damn dubious stance to take.
Another reason I choose to take climate change seriously is I have never heard a truly stupid argument for climate change. Most arguments I hear for it are sound, well reasoned, researched and presented with supporting data.
Most arguments I hear against climate change are generally along the lines of "LIBTARDS IZ TEH STOOPID COMMEEZ! " laden with snark, abuse, insults and a notable lack of cited facts.
There is a truly stupid argument I have heard repeatedly against climate chanfe I won't repeat here as it would be mistaken as abuse towards some people.
So when I see valid reasoned arguments citing prove able facts and data on one side and the other side has snark, insults, conspiracy theories, name calling, etc as responses I tend to go with the former.
It occurs to me, that maybe the bamster & AlGore did it for the National Flood Insurance Program....
Pretty big deal in the Outer Banks of North Carolina because it's good for tourism...
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on August 23, 2019, 08:48:49 PM
Well OK I'm going to make my case for man aggravated climate change like this, in what I hope in a non flame fashion.
....
Most arguments I hear against climate change are generally along the lines of "LIBTARDS IZ TEH STOOPID COMMEEZ! " laden with snark, abuse, insults and a notable lack of cited facts.
....
So when I see valid reasoned arguments citing prove able facts and data on one side and the other side has snark, insults, conspiracy theories, name calling, etc as responses I tend to go with the former.
You failed in your goal to make your case in a non-flaming fashion. Insulting those who disagree with you will never, ever convince them, it will 100% backfire and make them firmer in their beliefs.
Check out some old posts from a user named Ulthar.
He was absolutely convinced that human-caused climate change was a scam, and having a double PhD in chemistry and physics, could make an interesting case that the data for human-induced climate change was deeply flawed. Honestly, the physics were over my head, but one of his main points was that VERY few of the people arguing most passionately over this understood the science behind the predictions, and the science that ran contrary to them.
He was a smart fella! Not totally sure he was right, but he did make a scientific, rather than emotional, case.
If we caused it, or it's just a earth cycle, who knows? I don't.
Maybe both. But I believe it is happening, and if we can do anything to slow it down would seem like something everyone would be behind.
It won't be the end of the world- just the human race. The world was here looong before we were, and will still be here when we're gone.
http://youtu.be/xZbKHDPPrrc (http://youtu.be/xZbKHDPPrrc)
The thing that annoys me about proponents of climate change, is that they only want to calculate the human factor.
They never want to factor in the chemicals & darkness created by volcanoes.
They never want to factor in how the seventeen year cycles in sun spots, locusts and cicadas have their effect on the earth's climate.
And these same people want to dismiss how magnetars periodically wreak havoc on the earth's environment as pure science fiction.
Case in point, we hadn't heard of acid rain for a couple of decades until Last year's eruption of Kīlauea... Why? Because we found out it wasn't caused by pollution alone; it could be caused by anything from the sulfuric gasses from volcanoes, to terpenes caused by pine trees, to swamp gas.
And I believe 'IS' hypocrisy when one considers it was the same people out in Hollywood back in the 1980s who started telling everyone that tap water was bad for you, and that we should all be drinking Evian, who are now trying to act like it's not their fault that the landfills & the oceans are now full of plastic water bottles.
This thread made me think though...what if in 5,000 years, after our next ice age, if the human race is still here (and I think it will be, we're a tough bunch of critters), if they find a frozen man in a glacier, wearing a suit and tie and a Yale ring?
" What is this ornament on his finger ?"
"He must have been a tribal priest."
"Who was Armani?"
" Perhaps their God."
Quote from: LilCerberus on August 23, 2019, 10:08:18 PM
And I believe 'IS' hypocrisy when one considers it was the same people out in Hollywood back in the 1980s who started telling everyone that tap water was bad for you, and that we should all be drinking Evian, who are now trying to act like it's not their fault that the landfills & the oceans are now full of plastic water bottles.
Tell that to the folks in Flint, Michigan.
And you really can't blame plastic in the ocean on 'Hollywood stars".
EVERYONE has been throwing plastic all over the place since we invented it.
Myself-the water is ok here. So I drink out of the faucet. I ain't gonna spend good money on something I can get free. But a 5th of R+R whiskey comes in a plastic bottle. I don't throw it in the ocean. I toss it in the garbage. So it can be found by people 5000 years from now when we're dead.
Personally I think Global climate change is real, mainly because of the different stages the Earth went through from the Ice Age to now.
And folks say-"let's change from gas cars to electric cars!"
That's all fine and dandy-except even electric cars have gears that require oil. And those cars are made of plastic and steel. Plastic is f**king s**t up-and steel smelters are used to make the frame of the car that runs on electric. If we want to live like we do, destroying and depleting the planet is the only way we can do it. Kinda Catch 22.
Ain't it groovy? :twirl:
So- the beat goes on-!
http://youtu.be/slldMEPvUqA (http://youtu.be/slldMEPvUqA)
Quote from: indianasmith on August 23, 2019, 09:41:50 PM
Check out some old posts from a user named Ulthar.
He was absolutely convinced that human-caused climate change was a scam, and having a double PhD in chemistry and physics, could make an interesting case that the data for human-induced climate change was deeply flawed. Honestly, the physics were over my head, but one of his main points was that VERY few of the people arguing most passionately over this understood the science behind the predictions, and the science that ran contrary to them.
He was a smart fella! Not totally sure he was right, but he did make a scientific, rather than emotional, case.
The problem with Ulthar's arguments was that, although they were scientifically-based and factual, he acted like the people who knew more than he did and devoted their entire career to studying the issue hadn't already considered those arguments and either rejected them or decided that the other evidence greatly outweighed them. When 97% of scientists agree on something, a smart layman who is intractably convinced thee 3% of dissenters are correct doesn't sway me, even if he has PH.D.s in unrelated fields.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Some people believe that the powers that be know about climate chanfe and know humanity is aggravating it, and want it to cause global flooding and famine to reduce what Eneneezer Scrooge called "the surplus population" while the elite survive in enclaves and the rest of the population is reduced to the minimum workforce needed to support the elite.
I do not find this theory implausible.
Probably two useful points.
1) Definitions are key. Asking whether "Global Change" or "Climate Change" actually happens will make you look a bit silly, because "Changes" or "Climate Changes" are well documented for pretty much the history of the earth (and other planets as well). So it is downright irresposible to argue that nothing needs to be done about these changes. The contribution of human activities to the dynamics (speed and magnitude) of global changes is more complex.
2) Regarding a rise in sealevels, humankind is responding to this all the time. People living on coasts spent a lot of effort to secure their shores from the sea, with dams becoming larger and more robust over time. The reason that countries like the Netherlands gain land from the sea is because of (scientific) advances in dam building, not because the sea vanished. So, if the Reverend gets his chance for a seaside residence, he could easily build a dam when sealevels rise and enjoy the next decades and centuries with his celebrity neighbour. The idea that we as a society would do nothing and just have London under the sea is also somewhat silly.
Quote from: RCMerchant on August 23, 2019, 04:26:04 PM
Why is it left and right on this?
It's been happening at a slow rate since the industrial revolution. The ozone has been depleting for a looong time. We just have the scientific knowledge to figure this s**t out recently.
As far as Al Gore-I never seen his movie.I reckon he was trying to scare people into thinking it was gonna happen tommorow if they didn't elect him. Politics bulls**t.
I ain't for the left or right.
One bright spot is the O-Zone is actually healing these days. The bans on CFCs and such actually helped.
It's gonna stay that way if morons in our government continue to suck big oils dick.
I could care less. I can't afford a car.
Think about the polar bears! They will eat you! They should make a horror movie about it!