Climate change falsehood

maybe but the worlds not round so the water is up and down everywhere

 

And so is the stock market. :/

 

climate controversy is working as more miles of print created to deflect a far more serious issue one of the items being why is your stock market going up, that is actually bad news at this time.

 

Occasionally the boy shows a glimmer of intelligence.

ROLLING STONE | Goodbye, Miami

MOTHER JONES | Humans Have Already Set in Motion 69 Feet of Sea Level Rise

I'm sure Hoyt won't notice anything amiss. Zephyrhills is at 95' elevation.

 

Wikipedia notwithstanding, our elevation is 97 feet.
And learn how to spell Z-e-p-h-y-r-h-i-l-l-s. Think zephyr and hills. Do you need me to define zephyr for you?
My house elevation is slightly higher than that, but my neighbor across the street had to have repair due to a sinkhole. You just never know when one of those is going to open up.

 

I can understand that some people find that it's not proven beyond reasonable doubt that humans cause global heating. There's always doubt. On the other hand, I can't see that the opposite is proven either. There's no conclusive proof that humans are not causing global warming.

Where I work we mitigate risks that are much smaller than 50% if the consequences of the risk materializing is severe enough. On top of the consequence rating is "multitude loss of human life or nonreversible environmental damage." The probability we allow for such an occurence is extremely small.

As I see it, it's obvious that humans are quite possiby (I would say probably) causing global warming. It's also very possible that the consequences will be very severe, at least after our lifetimes.

Presuming that we care about what happens after we're dead, the only conclusion I can make is that we must make a substantial effort to reduce or eliminate the human actions that possibly are causing global warming. It's not necessary to view AGW as particularly likely, we're still obliged to mitigate the risk.

Erik

 

I think that, equally, there is no solid evidence that the changes proposed and enacted by the Greens have no risks that are worse than the existing. I started this thread to try to have a discussion separating activism from science. I do find your position reasonable, but not totally convincing.

 

It’s a nature thing just like ducks in a park that become to many, when to many they get diseases from their own urine and feces and then disease kicks in and wipes them out to a few,
You do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand the forces of nature as an example coral reefs in earth’s oceans which are diseased because feces of humans and other industrial waste pouring into the sea let alone in the earth’s atmosphere we bombard with every growing numbers of vehicles with fuel waste alongside domestic waste.
A child can figure that out due to pollution and is only greed and lack of consideration for our children “selfishness” that has everything to do with pollution "global warming"
Like sitting ducks, humans will follow suit.

 

I think we are just in another normal cycle of the planet, like the last one that created all the oil

 

Humans, a disease to earth that earth will adjust and nature will get rid of us in record time and not like other species that roamed earth for millions of years that meteorites or global change affected them or recently the disease “humans” who have instinct many species since the industrial age of 200 odd years and soon our selfs.

 

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

By 1800, world population had passed the 1 billion mark, and it has continued to grow since then to the current 7 billion.

 

If we humans can't be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must find for the verdict of not guilty.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not a legal trial where someone's presumed innocent until proven guilty, like Hoyt suggests. Who has to prove what? My argument is that it's rather the "sceptics" that should prove that humans are not causing global warning than the oposite, otherwise we should err on the safe side and assume that activities to mitigate the risk of excessive global warming are needed.

Without repeating the debate in this and other threads, there is research indicating that increased CO2 in the atmosphere contribute to the green house effect. I agree with Gonzo that the measures to reduce CO2 emission have negative consequencies as well and these have to be assessed and compared to the risk/consequences of global warming. As always in life we'll never know the full truth before we have to decide, or we will be run over by events. We have to make decisions anyway and make the best of the information we have. A decision to not reduce CO2 emission is in my opinion not well founded.

Why not start with measures to reduce CO2 that don't hurt very much and that have other positive effects? One measure is to exchange coal for natural gas. Another measure is to reduce dependence on imported oil by using natural gas or promoting (subsidizing) wind power, solar power or go more nuclear.

Erik

 

I can agree with that position. What I disagree with, is for example, ethanol added to fuel. The CO2 footprint of ethanol is larger than the fuel it replaces.

 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY | Stanford climate scientist addresses misconceptions about climate change