PA Ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

Geology isn’t junk science. Without geology a modern life is impossible. The physical evidence doesn’t exist for man made global warming. Read the article. The invisible man in the sky wants to tax you for something that isn’t a problem.

The earth is warming.

I’ll stick with the climate scientists. If I want to know where to drill for oil I’ll ask the geologists.

Again, the planet doesn’t care. The invisible man stuff went over your head. Not important.

But I have nothing else to add. I won’t change your mind–and you won’t change mine. We can agree on that.

For the last 18 years the earth has been cooling. That is a fact.

Please explain “the invisible man stuff” since I deal with facts not faith.

PA Ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

PA Ram wrote:

It doesn’t matter whether people believe in climate change or not. The planet doesn’t care.

The problem is that the response will end up being those who bemoan the fact we didn’t do anything about it–or enough about it to make a difference. Or, there will be those who say–there was never anything we could have done about it anyway.

No matter what happens, no one will be convinced of anything.

Except the planet’s warming. That will be hard to ignore.

No. Earth is cooling.

Uh huh. Well–like I said. Anyway–tell me that you aren’t the sort of climate denying skeptic who believes that some invisible man in the sky will save us anyway? Because–I’ve never been able to wrap my mind around that sort of critical thinking, “skeptic”. See–some climate deniers believe firmly and without doubt in something there is absolutely no physical evidence for–unless you believe in junk science, of course.

Geology isn’t junk science. Without geology a modern life is impossible. The physical evidence doesn’t exist for man made global warming. Read the article. The invisible man in the sky wants to tax you for something that isn’t a problem.

nittany ram wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:

<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>I am way more worried about fresh water reserves, I don’t consider man made climate change an issue, Invader.</span>

I agree that the depleting water reserves issue is a huge problem though obviously I disagree with you on the impact of climate change.

Here’s the thing about climate change. Whether you believe the current episode is being driven by man’s activities or not, climate change ALWAYS leads to large extinction events. So no matter what, it will be an issue.

Yes, but the large extinction events are most likely from global cooling.

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by bnw.

zn wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

i think it’s always better to remain a skeptic rather than just dogmatically cling onto an idea.

Those are not the only 2 alternatives.

People who see climate change as man-made see themselves as going with the science, and also lament the damage that the (well-funded) deniers campaign has had in the USA (though nowhere else).

We don’t see it as being “dogmatic.” I do see things like the reps in Congress putting pressure on both the CIA and the Pentagon to “flip” on this, when in fact both the CIA and Pentagon are well aware of the risks c.change poses to the country and the world.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-pentagon-climate-change-how-climate-deniers-put-national-security-at-risk-20150212

I also see, and heavily count, things like this:

nittany ram wrote:

One survey of earth scientists found that while 97 per cent of actively publishing climate scientists agree humans are changing global temperatures, only 47 per cent of economic geologists (those who study geology with a view to its commerical exploitation) concur (pdf). In fact, among all earth scientists, economic geologists are the most sceptical.

Those geologists working within paleoclimatology and palynology are the most skeptical since they study the climate as existed in earth’s past. They know climate change is a natural cyclical phenomena throughout earths past. There also isn’t any correlation between elevated CO2 and global warming in the earths past. The fact is the earth has been cooling for the last 65 million years. Global cooling is the far greater threat to mankind.

InvaderRam wrote:

ok. i’ll be a little more open on the climate change subject if only because i think it’s always better to remain a skeptic rather than just dogmatically cling onto an idea.

but i also think it’s always worthwhile to look into alternative sources of energy. if for no other reason than to provide the coal business with some competition. maybe help keep energy costs down for consumers.

solar technology i think is a good thing. i mean the the real possibility of free energy. electric cars especially in congested metropolitan cities is a good thing where the exhaust can do real damage to the local environment and to the health of those populations. i think fracking can do real damage to the local environment. maybe not the climate but again the local environment. likewise i worry about pesticides.

and also climate deniers should always be open to the idea of man made climate change. it’s never good to just shut out ideas completely. well obviously some ideas aren’t open for debate, but this issue seems important and complex enough that it shouldn’t just be closed and shut.

I agree alternative energies can offer great promise but the sad fact is they are not economically feasible for the needs of most people. With new discoveries involving battery technology and materials science perhaps that can change. I would prefer to use hydrocarbons for those things that have the best or sole application such as transportation, pharmaceuticals, materials etc.

I don’t see fracking as a danger to the local environment but I do see it as a real threat to future potential fresh water resources if not undertaken correctly.

Mackeyser wrote:

bnw wrote:

Mackeyser wrote:

Well, I live on the Gulf Coast of Florida.

And I’m here to tell you that the insurance companies just rezoned the entire state and moved the flood zones significantly…in a way that reflects directly the climate change models.

Now, why would they do that unless their actuarial tables reflected the actual risk of climate change to be real? Based on actual loss as measured on world wide climate, not just local variables?

Money. They want to make money with as little risk as possible.

So, they used the Climate models for shits and giggles? The raise in premiums was pure greed, but the risk allocation was exactly matching the climate models..what…to troll environmentalists?

/smh

To get people to pay for that which is most likely never needed. It is the basis of the insurance industry. Without fear no one would buy insurance. Think!

And yet the earth is cooling. BTW if I believed the global warming nonsense I wouldn’t be looking to buy along the Gulf Coast of FL where the terrain is very flat and close to the coast.

Again from the article-

The earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time.2