I think it's actually no good to dunk on this guy any more. He represents the "moron" end of the climate change denial spectrum, and we just all look like idiots by taking the bait of the low hanging fruit. Yours truly being the guiltiest.

Until and unless someone comes in this thread with a slightly more advanced view than "hurr durr, CO2 good for photosynthesis, more CO2 is better", I think we should just leave the troll alone.

EARTH BIG MAN SMALL

Fox News at 11 - Climate Change Hoax: Militant leftist echo chamber suppresses intellectually honest discussion of current political issues. Country even more divided by unwillingness to compromise.

ETA: Before I get strung up by Ins0, that was my "Onion" take on what Fox would make of this thread, not a true rendition of what was on Fox tonight. Well, I'm probably not far off.

ETA2: Breaking news: Another Hillary Clinton email found on unauthorised sever! Extra, extra, watch all about it!

https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/1...351066113?s=19

It'll be fine, bro. CO2 is good, so more CO2 is better.

From the debug data for the non-working link above the video he tried to post was this one



Which is by a guy who claims not to be a climate change denier or conspiracy theorist - but clearly is based on a good section of the video.

Anyway he's cherry picking and deliberating misinetrpreting 2 Nasa pages - that of course he doesn't link to anywhere but I have below so people can read the originals to draw there own conclusions as to whether he's talking out of his arse or not.

Study: Mass gains of Antarctic ice sheet greater than losses
&
Antarctica's contribution to sea level rise was mitigated by snowfall

Here's an article discussing this

What to Believe in Antarctica’s Great Ice Debate


Some bonus graphics from the video....





It's worth a watch to remind yourself that these people exist and other people take them seriously.

Your refusal to reply to the many challenges made on the merits of your point is probably ban-worthy. I'm not engaging with any more of your sophomoric drivel until you start answering the questions that have been posed to you in this thread.

Thanks, Strontium Dog, for taking the time to show up how truly clownish this all is.

Noted most rational and science-based human Sam Harris is retweeting Scott Adams' fellatio of climate denialist Tony Heller.

This entire thread needing to exist is an excellent argument for authoritarian technocracies everywhere. Imagine a world where idiots who couldn't be bothered to educate themselves about basic issues didn't get a say in how our country is run?

It's also an argument for massive educational reform as well as sharply curtailing the first amendment protections given to factually false statements.

it's like the OOT thread with the flat earther where people spent thousands of posts over the course of about a year showing off how smart they were and how much science they knew, then the flat earther guy would come back in and say 'that's not true, watch this 2 hour youtube video'. it was hilarious. it's so easy to troll people when you give them an invitation to show that they're smart and you're dumb.

I haven't really re-engaged because this seems to have run its course.

I read lots of the links and studies posted, and they've been helpful.

As I said in a previous post, I've already conceded that I think it's been shown rising global temperatures lead to rising sea levels, coastal flooding, longer heat waves, and more favorable conditions for more intense wildfires. So I'm already starting from a position that accepts that this is a problem.

I remain unconvinced that rising global temperatures necessarily cause more intense hurricanes, tornadoes, more damaging storms, or harsher winter storms (which seems counterintuitive to me). I'm not saying it's all a big librul conspiracy to hamstring the economy, but I am saying that I think some climate alarmists are pointing to any inclement weather as if it supports their position that it's all getting worse by the day. There's always been bad weather, it happens every sometimes.

I think the climate mechanisms that form those are all poorly understood at this point. I return to a point from the OP that global temperatures aren't "supposed" to be at any one level, but for all these carbon emissions that are making things worse. There's been a lot of variance in global temperatures, even through a clear warming trend since the Industrial Revolution that I fully acknowledge.

So now I'll ask: what actionable solutions are out there?

Incentivizing reduced carbon emissions sounds fine. Investing in renewable sources of electricity is all well and good, and it's starting to happen now. I'm just saying that until there's some paradigm-shifting technology that changes the fundamental way we transport ourselves, this is always going to be a problem at some level.

It's interesting that the Green New Deal has been talked about more over the course of this thread. I'm not sure the specifics of it are very actionable or practical, though. I think if the Democrats make it a litmus test for future office-seekers, it will go poorly for them because of how the right wing media machine will characterize it.

But if it only exists to start a dialogue and make people think this is a problem with a deadline, then maybe it's serving its purpose already.

So many people get this wrong, including many politicians.

The right wing media machine will characterize ANY Democratic proposal as evil/socialist/etc. Obamacare was literally a Heritage Foundation counter to what the Clintons were proposing in the 90s and look what happened about 10 years ago.

The clowns who watch Fox News are not the ones that need to be courted by Democrats.

Also, doing nothing and letting our environment collapse isn't a practical option. Some sort of immediate action is most practical option on the table.

Could you clarify what you mean by saying that global temperatures are not "supposed" to be anything? At the risk of sounding facetious, the other planets in the solar system get by just fine with their respective climates and atmospheres, but life on those planets is conspicuous by its absence.

Repeating yourself over and over again while ignoring the people who have engaged on your points is some pretty bad posting, dude.

Just got back from Vegas and sitting at the poker table. Its snowing outside on the strip Thursday night and a older white guy says
"Snowing in Vegas and people believe in Global Warming." Two other older gentleman agree with him. I say It's actually called climate change and I believe in it. Table got quite

Sadly I was shocked how many Trump supporters are still out there

You are convinced temperatures are rising but remain unconvinced that this causes hurricanes to be more intense?

I’m not a climate scientist but I’m pretty sure I learned in 8th grade Earth Science that warmer water temperatures cause hurricanes to strengthen.

I assume you are using some semantic trick to “remain unconvinced” because lol of course turning up the heat in the ocean will intensify hurricanes right?

That's the part I don't get. That somewhat warmer surface temperatures would cause the same hurricane to be stronger than it otherwise would be is about the easiest part of this whole discussion to buy. It's a bizarre sticking point.

nah dog data doesn't lie we had more big hurricanes hit bowling green in 1923 than in 2017 so no way to tell

I get that the Democrat's Green New Deal is to prevent unnatural climate change.

Can anyone explain though:

How long is humanity purported to survive natural climate change versus unnatural climate change?

Hopefully we hold off on the unnatural climate change long enough to find that out. Then maybe we can put unnatural climate control to our collective advantage and keep the planet viable for humanity even longer than purported.

Sounds vague and exploitable in an effort to destroy the American economy, just sayin.

I am not surprised to hear that from you since I suspected you might not be serious about the current exploitation that threatens the lives of billions.

But What?

Here in our province we have a carbon tax. Would it not take the whole world on board to achieve. Lots of talk but few hit their targets