Who on here has denied climate change?
You must have them on ignore. It's a good idea really.
The major debate seems to be over what can REALLY be done and to what Degree for a game change vs cost.
I agree. There are a lot of approaches and it's doubtful there's one that fits all.
...I think you dismissed the ppl in the post from NASA based on their back grounds of not being climate scientist.
I dismissed the lawyers and PR people. I made fun of the mathematician for his poor math and logic and the engineer for cheery picking data and stating wrong facts that were easily verifiable. But yes, they're also not climate scientists and there were no climate scientists there as far as I could tell.
... Are any ppl on other side from your view considered climate scientist?
What you're really getting to is the question about
why is your reference any better than my reference?
But hopefully, it's obvious. Bad sites make up data and don't provide references to actual peer-reviewed published data. Good sites do. For example, Skeptical Science has excerpts and videos from real climate scientists and commentary. The responses are evolutionary and have grown as more information is ascertained and there is more feedback from scientists. I like that site because it is concise, cites scientific references, and is focused on countering misinformation.
A fact check on them says:
Rather than fully qualifying each claim, the site focuses on challenging it by citing counterexamples for why it is incorrect, and structuring the examples into a rebuttal of the original claim. The site primarily gains the content for these articles from peer reviewed scientific papers.[5] Many articles have been translated into other languages, and are split into up to three levels of technical depth.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science#cite_note-Yale-3
The Skeptical Science home page also features blog posts by regular and guest contributors, which may be new rebuttals of a certain argument or simply the blogger's view on a relevant climate news item.[6] Like the rebuttals, the blog entries tend to hold a consistent tone that the scientific opinion on anthropogenic global warming is generally accurate.[7]
The fact check on the conference you mentioned was nowhere near so flattering:
International Conference on Climate Change
The International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) is a conference series organized and sponsored by The Heartland Institute which aims to bring together those who "dispute that the science is settled on the causes, consequences, and policy implications of climate change. ref
Conference Sponsor: Heartland Institute
I've never seen any data in error from the Skeptical Science site and no one has ever contested
any of the facts on it so far in this thread. If you see something technical regarding global warming that you believe is wrong, by all means, let's discuss facts rather than innuendo.
Yet again there was a dismissing statement about those NASA scientist and engineers.
No, not dismissive. In
#1,840 I reviewed at length documenting and timestamping where they said what, and then explained why it was correct or incorrect or provided a URL as to where it had already been debunked by others. If you believe I'm in error on any point, then please let us discuss that point rather than cast vague doubts.
I would put the NASA ppl up against their team at skeptical science any day even if you backed them up with these volunteers.
I would too.
But, it so happens the people at NASA agree that climate change is real and a lot of the data on the Skeptical Science page points back to NASA pages.
It's only the one ex-NASA guy paid to attend conferences put together by PR organizations paid to sow doubt with facts fairly easy to disprove that I don't credit.
I do deny that if we spend trillions of dollars it will make a significant difference.
A very wealthy man walks into a bar and sees a beautiful woman sitting at the bar. He walks up to her and asks her if he can buy her a drink. She accepts and he says to her, "I can't help but notice that you are exceptionally beautiful. I am an extremely wealthly man and was wondering if you would consider sleeping with me for one million dollars."
She thinks for a moment and replies: "Well, yes...I accept."
The man says, "Would you sleep with me for ten dollars?"
She says, "What do you think I am, a WHORE???"
He says, "We've already established that, NOW, we are negotiating the price!"
Take money totally out of the equation, all it does is confuse people as to what the right thing to do is.
Consider we add GHGs into the atmosphere faster than nature can remove them, that GHGs cause warming, that warming causes climate change.
Can't let go of the costs eh? What if I told you we could do it
and save Trillions of Dollars? Well, I already have told you about it ...see
#1,855 and
#1,852.
...That is my opinion and belief based on everything have seen or read is wasteful. BESIDES We as a Country do not have the money.
We don't have money to go to war either, so what would we do if Russia invaded? Roll over because we can't afford it?
Fox and other outlets try to make the solutions sound scary and expensive so people feel helpless.
Let's take those trillions you keep talking about that. You know that's the estimate for the
world to get to carbon zero by 2050.
So, if we spread it out over 27 years (assuming net-zero by 2050) across the world that comes to about $40/person/year.
And you know what, you were going to pay more than that anyway in terms of replacement and repair for existing facilities. That costs trillions too. The idea is mainly to replace existing fossil plants as they hit end-of-life with renewables. It is money we were always going to spend on fossil fuels, that is if you take what we were going to spend minus what we'd spend for renewables it's only a little more expensive today and a lot cheaper in a few years.
Even worse, you're already paying more than that just for the increase in weather-related incidents (see
#1,840), and since we're not yet talking about bringing GHGs down (it's only about not adding anymore), those costs might be with us until people and cities have adapted to the "new" climate. Cities need to stop being reactive and spend to adapt to change.
What should scare us about those trillion of dollars is that they won't be spent wisely. But it's the government we're talking about. What could possibly go wrong? ; -)
It's not all gloom and doom by any means.