Global Warming Discussion (10 Viewers)

[Fred]

Cars are freedom.

if I ever live in the city again, ill probably get an electric motorcycle tho, would be way easier to park and get around.

would still keep the car

in the US you kind of need a car though.
I always loved having a car. But in Amsterdam its too much trouble. Plus you can get around easier with a bike.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[GordoDeCentral]

Bwahahahahaha

 

[Siamak]

I used to suffer every summer with a burn. but this summer, is the worst summer that i have ever experienced. I have to use sunscreen everyday even though I grew up in the era of epic sunburns. Worst sunburn I've ever had from work trip to house. the temperature is around 35 degrees Celsius here.

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

Nuclear wasn't considered green before?

 

[swag]

Nuclear wasn't considered green before?

Depends on who was doing the considering.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Okay lets settle this issue.

Go...

 

[Dostoevsky]

Yeah, I think that...

 

[X Æ A-12]

Okay lets settle this issue.

Go...

Head too boxy. Would be like banging Immobile

 

[JuventusUruguay]

I miss the images of polar bears “suffering” due to global warming that were trending 15 years ago, seems that they got extinct since nowadays there are no images of that in the media.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

In the US we need to reduce the restrictions imposed on licensing and building new Nuclear Breeder Reactors. The Coal/Gas/Oil Lobby don't want it, so they spread that Nuclear isn't green. Every person since 1980 has told every WV resident that "coal is coming back." It isn't and never will.

I'm pretty sure Breeder Reactors produce Helium as their only biproduct.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Yeah, I think that...

You don't care if half the Earth's land mass is under water by 2035? Yeah, me too.

Head too boxy. Would be like banging Immobile

That's fuckign sick.

I miss the images of polar bears “suffering” due to global warming that were trending 15 years ago, seems that they got extinct since nowadays there are no images of that in the media.

They're all dead.

---

Okay so we all agree that man made climate change is an undeniable scientific fact? (I'm too lazy to try to understand the science myself, so I'm hoping Tuz' brightest minds can put all questions to bed).

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Okay so we all agree that man made climate change is an undeniable scientific fact? (I'm too lazy to try to understand the science myself, so I'm hoping Tuz' brightest minds can put all questions to bed).

This is all you need to watch:


@GordoDeCentral

Here you go. PhD from Sydney and British Columbia.

Where is he wrong?

@Dostoevsky

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

This is all you need to watch:

Thanks. Nothing new to me here, but useful.

Deniers, what do you have to say?

 

[campionesidd]

Thanks. Nothing new to me here, but useful.

Deniers, what do you have to say?

I used to be a denier a long time ago. My main talking points were.

1) Humans emit a tiny fraction of CO2

2) Melting sea ice will decrease sea levels, not increase them because ice is less dense than cold water.

3) Increasing CO2 levels would be good for plants and forests

The refutations to these are easy
1) It is true that humans emit a tiny fraction of CO2 compared to natural factors, but that tiny fraction throws the entire carbon cycle of balance. It will take the earth millions of years to reach a new carbon equilibrium with these emissions.

2) The issue is melting ice on land, like glaciers which will add volume to the oceans, not icebergs in the sea.

3) Deforestation is a thing. Humans keep destroying vast areas of forest cover every year. Even without it, like point 1, it will take millions of years to reach a new equilibrium.

The only thing I do not agree with climate alarmists is the claim of runaway global warming- like Venus. That simply won’t happen in my opinion. But even one or two degrees warming can be devastating to life as we know it, as we can clearly see with increasing extreme weather phenomena around the globe each year.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

I used to be a denier a long time ago. My main talking points were.

1) Humans emit a tiny fraction of CO2

2) Melting sea ice will decrease sea levels, not increase them because ice is less dense than cold water.

What about land ice?

 

[campionesidd]

What about land ice?

Sorry meant to edit my own refutations to that post. I edited it now.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

@Dostoevsky

- - - Updated - - -

This doesn't have to do with global warming, but it is money:

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

I used to be a denier a long time ago. My main talking points were.

1) Humans emit a tiny fraction of CO2

2) Melting sea ice will decrease sea levels, not increase them because ice is less dense than cold water.

3) Increasing CO2 levels would be good for plants and forests

The refutations to these are easy
1) It is true that humans emit a tiny fraction of CO2 compared to natural factors, but that tiny fraction throws the entire carbon cycle of balance. It will take the earth millions of years to reach a new carbon equilibrium with these emissions.

2) The issue is melting ice on land, like glaciers which will add volume to the oceans, not icebergs in the sea.

3) Deforestation is a thing. Humans keep destroying vast areas of forest cover every year. Even without it, like point 1, it will take millions of years to reach a new equilibrium.

The only thing I do not agree with climate alarmists is the claim of runaway global warming- like Venus. That simply won’t happen in my opinion. But even one or two degrees warming can be devastating to life as we know it, as we can clearly see with increasing extreme weather phenomena around the globe each year.

Thanks for the answer.

The mainstream climate science I've seen, the graphs and diagrams, is all pretty convincing to a layman such as myself. And it seems intuitive to me that mankind's polluting activities would have consequences for the natural world.

Plus, there seems to be more consensus among the scientific community than on nearly any subject I've ever seen in my life. All the climate denial I've seen comes from the "conspiracy and fringe" corners of the internet, and while I've seen interesting arguments from that side, again I am not very scientifically savvy to be able to filter out all the BS.

I'm naturally always skeptical of any truth handed down to the masses from the authorities, and since 2020 a lot more so. And when I see the politicisation of climate change to advance many an agenda I can't help but doubt.

What I think would be really helpful for someone like me and the public in general is well moderated debate between two of the most prominent scientists on either side of the issue. Joe Rogan should host it.

 

[.zero]

This discussion is all based on opinion. No facts avaialable to prove the warming phenomena.

Close bred pls

 

[Bjerknes]