Jump to content
BANGKOK 21 February 2019 21:22
webfact

Climate change seen as top threat, but U.S. power a growing worry - poll

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

So a guy who is polling in the 35-45% range and dropping is going to win the election by a landslide? Put down the Kool Aid man. 

And as for the question on how much of this is just a natural cycle... 

24_co2-graph-021116-768px.jpg

Think before you speak.

It is still a trace gas and the temperatures have not kept increasing in line with the rise in CO2 (which is what the theory says it should do) in the atmosphere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 8:58 PM, bristolboy said:

Because the choices you offered were inadequate. The best answer, the one that most climatologists would subscribe to would be " from most to all".

The correct answer would be some, and they really don't know how much is attributable to manmade activities. Anyone that says all is ignorant of the science, but it works well in the political realm.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

The correct answer would be some, and they really don't know how much is attributable to manmade activities. Anyone that says all is ignorant of the science, but it works well in the political realm.

Well, I didn't say "all".  I said "from most to all." Big difference. Nice try at a straw man, though.

 

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

It is still a trace gas and the temperatures have not kept increasing in line with the rise in CO2 (which is what the theory says it should do) in the atmosphere.

No reputable climatologist says CO2 is the only factor. Therefore, other factors may come into play. But the sharp historically unprecedented rate of increase correlates with the sharp historically increase in the amount of CO2. Maybe the earth will experience a sharp rise in volcanism or a sharp decrease in solar output. Those factors can have a dampening influence. But best not to count on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Well, I didn't say "all".  I said "from most to all." Big difference. Nice try at a straw man, though.

 

No reputable climatologist says CO2 is the only factor. Therefore, other factors may come into play. But the sharp historically unprecedented rate of increase correlates with the sharp historically increase in the amount of CO2. Maybe the earth will experience a sharp rise in volcanism or a sharp decrease in solar output. Those factors can have a dampening influence. But best not to count on it.

I completely agree that no reputable science climatologist says CO2 is the only factor, but you specifically posted that most or all the warming was due to human actions. Then questioned my intelligence when I disagreed. 

 

My point on all of my climate posts is that the cure (Kyoto, Paris etc.) is not effective and too expensive. While we can disagree on the affordability of these agreements, there isn't much to argue about the effectiveness of these types of agreements in actually decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  None of these agreements would have reduced the amount of worldwide temperature change (or CO2) in any measurable way. Proposals to eliminate all fossil fuels will make some people feel good but are basically anti-humanity and will sentence people in developing countries to poverty. Fossil fuels heat our homes in winter, allow air travel, and have improved human existence and life expectancies throughout the world and to date none of the green energies hold a reasonable or realistic promise of replacing fossil fuels in the near or long term future.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ahab said:

I completely agree that no reputable science climatologist says CO2 is the only factor, but you specifically posted that most or all the warming was due to human actions. Then questioned my intelligence when I disagreed. 

 

My point on all of my climate posts is that the cure (Kyoto, Paris etc.) is not effective and too expensive. While we can disagree on the affordability of these agreements, there isn't much to argue about the effectiveness of these types of agreements in actually decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  None of these agreements would have reduced the amount of worldwide temperature change (or CO2) in any measurable way. Proposals to eliminate all fossil fuels will make some people feel good but are basically anti-humanity and will sentence people in developing countries to poverty. Fossil fuels heat our homes in winter, allow air travel, and have improved human existence and life expectancies throughout the world and to date none of the green energies hold a reasonable or realistic promise of replacing fossil fuels in the near or long term future.  

You raised the whole issue of intelligence with you proposed silly questions.

Your point was about Kyoto? Have you actually raised it in this threads?

As for the rise in global warming, it's rate of increase is unprecedented in recorded history. In fact, going back at least 11,000 years. So yes, it's obvious that most or all  of it is due to human generated greenhouse gases.

And as climatologists point out, the people who are already suffering the most and going to suffer a lot more from  climate change are those who live in the tropics and subtropics. The frequency and intensity of heatwaves there has already killed thousands and it's going to get worse. And low lying countries like Bangladesh are facing the likelihood of massive flooding.

And the glaciers of the Himalayas and South American, among others, which supply the rivers that water areas of roughly half the earth's  population, are in rapid retreat.

 

And your comments about green energies are dead dead dead wrong.  These are the fossilized arguments of the fossil fuel crowd. Not only has the cost of generating solar and wind already declined so precipitously  that it's already knocking coal out as an economical source of power generation, but it's starting to do the same to natural gas. All these development are happening way ahead of what was predicted just a few years ago.

Thanks to recent huge advance in battery storage,  the rate of progress will only accelerate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 

And as climatologists point out, the people who are already suffering the most and going to suffer a lot more from  climate change are those who live in the tropics and subtropics. The frequency and intensity of heatwaves there has already killed thousands and it's going to get worse. And low lying countries like Bangladesh are facing the likelihood of massive flooding.

And the glaciers of the Himalayas and South American, among others, which supply the rivers that water areas of roughly half the earth's  population, are in rapid retreat.

 

And your comments about green energies are dead dead dead wrong.  These are the fossilized arguments of the fossil fuel crowd. Not only has the cost of generating solar and wind already declined so precipitously  that it's already knocking coal out as an economical source of power generation, but it's starting to do the same to natural gas. All these development are happening way ahead of what was predicted just a few years ago.

Thanks to recent huge advance in battery storage,  the rate of progress will only accelerate.

The frequency of heatwaves and other things such as hurricanes, tornados, and typhoons have not increased (from the IPCC).

The low lying areas of Bangladesh have faced the threat of flooding for the last couple of hundred years, so that is a fairly bold prediction on your part.

 

My comments on green energy are based on the realities and the footprint (sq/m per kw/h) that these technologies require to produce enough power to meet a modern countries energy needs (unless you are in favor of nuclear power, which I would guess you are not). A good video on the topic can be found in the Ted link below. I am not against green energy, I am against unrealistic expectations and solutions that have no chance of working with the current technology. Let's do things that work.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, doggie1955 said:

Well, I can see you are not an American... The one thing you don't understand is that liberals hate Trump, but the real American's love him!

 

Who are outnumbered by Americans who apparently aren't real.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Who are outnumbered by Americans who apparently aren't real.

Who are all illegals... Sorry, we don't call them Americans! 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, doggie1955 said:

Who are all illegals... Sorry, we don't call them Americans! 

Who is 'we' please?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stevenl said:

Who is 'we' please?

Him, and the other three voices in his head.

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, yogavnture said:

either us the boss or china the boss . u pick

There is the fundamental problem of your country, there doesn't have to be a boss, you can work together.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, doggie1955 said:

Who are all illegals... Sorry, we don't call them Americans! 

Oh, if you vote against Trump, that makes you an illegal?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...