Is USA really the only country against Human Climate Change?

[cubby]

The Earth will burn to a cinder when the sun goes into its red giant stage. Yet I'm somehow not seeking solutions to the future sun problem.

So, again, do you think water boils at a different temperature because you think it will? Otherwise, you're just ignoring science. But that's fun, right? All feels and no reals.

- - - Updated - - -

Someone tells you if you don't stop burning coal, everyone will die. Okay.
BUT! We are willing to let you burn that coal that's going to kill everyone if you're willing to give me $$$$.

What part of that isn't a scam? Because if burning coal is going to destroy the world as we know it, why are we allowed to burn coal at all? Why are we allowed to be industrialized if its the grave threat they say it is?

Just because you don't understand science, doesn't mean the issue isn't real. If you don't understand carbon offsets, just ask - we'll explain. But being ignorant of something isn't an excuse to deny it.

[Flutterguy]

So, again, do you think water boils at a different temperature because you think it will? Otherwise, you're just ignoring science. But that's fun, right? All feels and no reals.

- - - Updated - - -



Just because you don't understand science, doesn't mean the issue isn't real. If you don't understand carbon offsets, just ask - we'll explain. But being ignorant of something isn't an excuse to deny it.

So you believe climate never changed before humans industrialized?

[Allybeboba]

Impossible in most cases == extremely improbable ...



That doesn't make both sides equally as bad ...

In the perceived person’s eyes of course it does not. Their biasness won’t allow it. They can only perceive one side as being the “bad” side.
Just use my example before with the blanks in it. Political zealots are very similar to religious zealots. They only see their political “religion” as being the correct religion and every other religion as being “wrong”. We witness unwavering political zealotry all the time. To the point it comes to personal attacks and immature name calling. Hell, I was told to “go die in a fire” not too long ago because my view wasn’t parallel with theirs. Not because I disagreed with them. Simply, because I didn’t agree with their views.
My example again...
“My _____ is better than your _____ therefore you must ____!”
Just fill in whatever you like.

[ryan11d7]

So you believe climate never changed before humans industrialized?

Climate change and human climate change are not one in the same.

[cubby]

So you believe climate never changed before humans industrialized?

Of course not.

But the only reason you know that the climate changed before humans industrialized is because of scientists. Those same scientists are now telling you that humans are unnaturally and harmfully changing the climate.

Why do you believe them about one thing and not the other?

[Allybeboba]

So, again, do you think water boils at a different temperature because you think it will? Otherwise, you're just ignoring science. But that's fun, right? All feels and no reals.

- - - Updated - - -



Just because you don't understand science, doesn't mean the issue isn't real. If you don't understand carbon offsets, just ask - we'll explain. But being ignorant of something isn't an excuse to deny it.

I bet if I add a little salt in it will boil at a different temperature. Or if I am in Denver it will boil at different temperature than where I am now.
Science is fun!

[Endus]

So you believe climate never changed before humans industrialized?

This is a bullshit argument that demonstrates a complete failure to understand the very basics of this issue. Whether willfully or just because you've taken in the bullshit propaganda without questioning it.

The facts are that climate is shifting outside of natural cycles. It's shifting at a rate orders of magnitude more rapid than the most rapid naturally occurring cycles. The warming after the onset of an interglacial period, for instance, sees temperatures rise by about a degree every 500-1000 years. We're on track to see that in less than a century, and that pace is still accelerating.

The only comparable natural cycles were short-term events like major volcanic events, but those events would occur and then stop. Human emissions patterns have been ongoing and increasing for over a century, and they're still increasing. This isn't a temporary situation; we've already dumped enough GHGs into the atmosphere to cause warming to continue for centuries, even if we dropped human emissions to zero overnight and kept it there forever.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

This bullshit about how "climates have always changed" is climate-denier bullshit that misrepresents basic facts to push a deliberate lie, and nothing more.

[cubby]

I bet if I add a little salt in it will boil at a different temperature. Or if I am in Denver it will boil at different temperature than where I am now.

Finally, you understand. What you just said is exactly the same method they used to demonstrate human climate change.

[Allybeboba]

Of course not.

But the only reason you know that the climate changed before humans industrialized is because of scientists. Those same scientists are now telling you that humans are unnaturally and harmfully changing the climate.

Why do you believe them about one thing and not the other?

I am not saying the climate isn’t changing...
Don’t those same scientists make money off saying the climate is changing?

[cubby]

I am not saying the climate isn’t changing...
Don’t those same scientists make money off saying the climate is changing?

Then what are you saying?

[HumbleDuck]

In the perceived person’s eyes of course it does not. Their biasness won’t allow it. They can only perceive one side as being the “bad” side.
Just use my example before with the blanks in it. Political zealots are very similar to religious zealots. They only see their political “religion” as being the correct religion and every other religion as being “wrong”. We witness unwavering political zealotry all the time. To the point it comes to personal attacks and immature name calling. Hell, I was told to “go die in a fire” not too long ago because my view wasn’t parallel with theirs. Not because I disagreed with them. Simply, because I didn’t agree with their views.
My example again...
“My _____ is better than your _____ therefore you must ____!”
Just fill in whatever you like.

This is not an argument in favor of your initial claim ( i.e., "in fact, they are equally just as bad.") either.

[Allybeboba]

Finally, you understand. What you just said is exactly the same method they used to demonstrate human climate change.

Basic chemistry my friend. Boiling temperature changes at lower altitudes due to lower air pressure.

When you add NaCl it raises the boiling point of water.

[cubby]

Basic chemistry my friend. Boiling temperature changes at lower altitudes due to lower air pressure.

Stop saying I'm right - you're good now. I appreciate the extra effort though.

[Kallisto]

So you believe climate never changed before humans industrialized?

Not anywhere close to the rate it has been since we industrialized.

So either

a) It's a major fluke that the two started to happen at the same time

or

B) Gasses we know warms up atmospheres are warming up the planet at an alarming rate and altering weather patters at in certain areas catastrophic levels.

[Yvaelle]

And not all the money at your exchance was used for charitable causes either. There's such a thing as overhead. I was just calling you out on your bullshit.

I don't recall saying my organization was without overhead

No organization (including charities) are without overhead, it doesn't mean they are all scams. Charities, NPO's, and even for-profit carbon credit and offsetting companies can all have overhead and still serve a good cause. By contrast, the Tithe a church asks for was never meant to be used for charitable purposes - it was meant to empower the glory of God and the power of your church.

I was more speaking to indulgences where you can sin as much as you like so long as you're willing to toss your local bishop a bag of gold once in a while.

If that gold even partially went to recompensing the victims (in this case, the environment) this might be analogous, otherwise it's not the same thing.

[Endus]

I am not saying the climate isn’t changing...
Don’t those same scientists make money off saying the climate is changing?

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists don't make a penny off "saying the climate is changing". They make their salaries for conducting research, and their research all tends to arrive at the same basic conclusions on this stuff, because that's what's actually happening, but they're not getting paid to come up with a particular result. That isn't how the vast majority of science funding works.

The few exceptions are most often people working for propaganda think tanks like the NIPCC denier group, who are paid to lie and obfuscate, not conduct defensible research.

[Allybeboba]

Then what are you saying?

The people claiming it is happening stand to gain money.
The people that are claiming that it isn’t happening stand to gain money.
Lobbyists for both sides are giving money to people in the government.

Who do you think is really getting screwed?

[Endus]

The people claiming it is happening stand to gain money.

For the most part, this is false.

The people that are claiming that it isn’t happening stand to gain money.

In many cases, that is true, however.

Lobbyists for both sides are giving money to people in the government.

You've now moved goalposts from "scientists" to "lobbyists".

[Allybeboba]

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists don't make a penny off "saying the climate is changing". They make their salaries for conducting research, and their research all tends to arrive at the same basic conclusions on this stuff, because that's what's actually happening, but they're not getting paid to come up with a particular result. That isn't how the vast majority of science funding works.

The few exceptions are most often people working for propaganda think tanks like the NIPCC denier group, who are paid to lie and obfuscate, not conduct defensible research.

I am not questioning their integrity at all. Most , the overwhelming majority( as you said) are there just to do research. I would image many are there working on their thesis projects and may not even being paid.
I know how government funding works. At least on the university level.

[cubby]

The people claiming it is happening stand to gain money.
The people that are claiming that it isn’t happening stand to gain money.
Lobbyists for both sides are giving money to people in the government.

Who do you think is really getting screwed?

I think as with all things science, we listen to the (97%) majority and go with their findings. Why do you think we should ignore all the scientists?