Jollybear
Hey
All you guys do is talk everything but evidence. Evidence is the substance. Is there proof for global warming being a danger or not and if there is, what is it and how do you know? You dont know by a consensus.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Climate Change real or a Hoax
- Thread starter Prometheus85
- Start date
All you guys do is talk everything but evidence. Evidence is the substance. Is there proof for global warming being a danger or not and if there is, what is it and how do you know? You dont know by a consensus.
Prometheus85
Active Member
Here we go again with "global cooling in the past" and not caused by humans smh. There are two types of CO2 emissions. Natural CO2 and human CO2. The one we are talking about now is human CO2 emissions aka anthropogenic (man-made) climate change.
Prometheus85
Active Member
Prometheus85
Active Member
Prometheus85
Active Member
If we don’t know about consensus, why did you post a video form YouTube saying the consensus of 90% of scientists saying global warming is a threat is wrong?
leov
Well-Known Member
What does it worth? Article is fake, debunking is fake...
Audie
Veteran Member
Sorry ah, he has you beat with "over".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You have been shown quite a bit of evidence and you waved it off. This indicates that at best you do not understand the evidence.
Let's start at the beginning. Do you understand the Greenhouse Effect?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do realize what a consensus is, don't you? That means there will be some that disagree. Finding a few outliers proves nothing. I take that back. The wording your source used indicates that it was written by science deniers.
Prometheus85
Active Member
I see debating with you has a tendency to go in circles.
Yes, but we are overdue for an ice age. You are ignoring that.
That is what is inconclusive. We don't know where the natural warming/cooling ends and man made begins, because the cycle has been delayed.
leov
Well-Known Member
I see articles about man made gw and gw being a hoax? I know that gw or cooling is natural., It is always around, around, around.
Is that your standard for making decisions regarding risks and threats? Would it be if somebody put a gun to your head and told you that if you didn't hand over your wallet that he would put a bullet in your brain. Are you going to demand proof that the object at your head is a loaded gun and that you might be killed? If so, it may be too late for you when the proof that the gun was loaded and its owner willing to kill you appears.
This is a classic risk management problem. You have two choices, and either might be right or wrong. How do you decide? Generally with a risk management analysis, whether explicit or intuitive. Either choice A or choice B might be right or wrong. We decide by assessing the cost of being wrong.
Sure, refusing to turn over the wallet might save your wallet if the thief was bluffing, but it also might cost you your life. The cost of being wrong assuming that the gun is not loaded and being killed is much greater than the cost of being wrong turning over your wallet and being left alive.
We can do the same considering whether to buy automotive insurance or not. We might never need it, in which case never buying it is the best choice. But we can't know that. We buy it if we can without proof that it is necessary because the cost of buying insurance unnecessarily, one form of being wrong, is affordable , unlike the cost of needing the insurance but having made the error of not purchasing it.
With anthropological climate change, we can and must do the same. If you wait for proof that the climate scientists were correct, the damage will already have been done. The decision to act now or not must be made on these risk management principles - what is the cost of erroneously choosing choice A versus erroneously choosing choice B? That is, what price do we pay for ignoring this and discovering that the scientists were correct compared to transitioning to renewable non-fossil fuel alternatives and discovering that they were wrong?
We did so in our home, and now get our electrical power for free from solar panels and a solar water heater on our roof. How could that possibly be a mistake even if there is no global warming?
If you think about it, proof isn't your standard for most other decisions, such as choosing to go to your favorite restaurant tonight. Do you need proof that it is open before you decide to go there? Maybe it burned down earlier in the day. Irrelevant, right, because the cost of going there and being wrong - no restaurant, or closed - is acceptable. But if the news reported that there was a shoot-out there, you wouldn't go, even though that news might be false.
It's all about risk management - minimizing the cost of being wrong.
Shad
Veteran Member
B at best but I still disagree. I think it is a combination of nature and human action.
siti
Well-Known Member
In other words, you can’t deny the credentials of these climate experts and their mere presence makes you afraid.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Hoax. Next question?
A good measure of whether something is real or a hoax is to ask the question, "Cui Bono?" If something is real, nobody makes money, nobody profits because the problem is a legitimate one. Another way to determine a hoax is if the problem in question seems to have no way of getting solved.
Banning CFCs and lowering carbon MONOXIDE were legitimate problems. Environmentalists pushed hard for these, and honestly, I haven't heard about them lately, so I can reasonably assume proper measures were established to make cars run without CO1, and aerosol cans now proudly say No CFCs.
What about climate change? Well, ummm... some form of this has been around for nearly 100 years. Don't believe me? Here's exhibit A.
Great Gatsby (1925)
Even Tom couldn't be sure whether the sun was warming or cooling (and he had a pretty crude way of explaining why the Earth was getting hotter, nothing about greenhouse gases or ozone, just the sun getting closer).
Nor could so-called "scientists" for climate change.
Here are ten predictions Al Gore made.
And here are Seven Failed Environmental Predictions, including "global cooling."
https://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/
You know why they call it climate change? Because it's easy to assert this. Global cooling? Climate change. Global warming? Climate change. A deviation from climate change predictions? Climate change!
Climate changes all the time. In fact, do yourself a favor and research what "cloud seeding" is. It's possible to manufacture weather.
Cloud seeding - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Before you say "fringe science", it's actually been used since at least the 1940s. And crude methods like dropping dry ice into cloud masses, even earlier than that. When it's possible to improve rainfall via industrial means (silver iodide for instance), such scares no longer have any worth, as temporary weather can behave as "proof."
Carbon dioxide is a thing we exhale. It is impossible to remove it from the air without substantially killing off the human population. Which is perhaps the goal. Who benefits answer #1, space aliens or demons or something that want all humans dead. Not only that, but plants breathe in CO2. It's perfectly fine. Do the environmental groups say anything about CO1? No, because the problem is probably not relevant. However, something impossible to remove is an endless source of hysteria. This in turn crates insane rioters and people who blame climate change on everything including immigration. Who benefits #2, Big Government. It also creates a lucrative tax source, where people can be told about their "carbon footprint" and taxes can be levied on the use of resources (#3 tax agents and regulators). Beyond regulation, there are big scary multinational groups that declare this settled (#4 the UN and EU, and other such groups) science. Many such motives also include population control as an agenda, even though the average member of the public would have difficulty seeing what this has to do with climate. But they would say something about national resources, even though in fact more plants can be grown, even atop buildings.
I could go on, but I have already shown a number of those with abstract or monetary gain from pushing this agenda.
A good measure of whether something is real or a hoax is to ask the question, "Cui Bono?" If something is real, nobody makes money, nobody profits because the problem is a legitimate one. Another way to determine a hoax is if the problem in question seems to have no way of getting solved.
Banning CFCs and lowering carbon MONOXIDE were legitimate problems. Environmentalists pushed hard for these, and honestly, I haven't heard about them lately, so I can reasonably assume proper measures were established to make cars run without CO1, and aerosol cans now proudly say No CFCs.
What about climate change? Well, ummm... some form of this has been around for nearly 100 years. Don't believe me? Here's exhibit A.
Great Gatsby (1925)
Even Tom couldn't be sure whether the sun was warming or cooling (and he had a pretty crude way of explaining why the Earth was getting hotter, nothing about greenhouse gases or ozone, just the sun getting closer).
Nor could so-called "scientists" for climate change.
Here are ten predictions Al Gore made.
And here are Seven Failed Environmental Predictions, including "global cooling."
https://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/
You know why they call it climate change? Because it's easy to assert this. Global cooling? Climate change. Global warming? Climate change. A deviation from climate change predictions? Climate change!
Climate changes all the time. In fact, do yourself a favor and research what "cloud seeding" is. It's possible to manufacture weather.
Cloud seeding - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Before you say "fringe science", it's actually been used since at least the 1940s. And crude methods like dropping dry ice into cloud masses, even earlier than that. When it's possible to improve rainfall via industrial means (silver iodide for instance), such scares no longer have any worth, as temporary weather can behave as "proof."
Carbon dioxide is a thing we exhale. It is impossible to remove it from the air without substantially killing off the human population. Which is perhaps the goal. Who benefits answer #1, space aliens or demons or something that want all humans dead. Not only that, but plants breathe in CO2. It's perfectly fine. Do the environmental groups say anything about CO1? No, because the problem is probably not relevant. However, something impossible to remove is an endless source of hysteria. This in turn crates insane rioters and people who blame climate change on everything including immigration. Who benefits #2, Big Government. It also creates a lucrative tax source, where people can be told about their "carbon footprint" and taxes can be levied on the use of resources (#3 tax agents and regulators). Beyond regulation, there are big scary multinational groups that declare this settled (#4 the UN and EU, and other such groups) science. Many such motives also include population control as an agenda, even though the average member of the public would have difficulty seeing what this has to do with climate. But they would say something about national resources, even though in fact more plants can be grown, even atop buildings.
I could go on, but I have already shown a number of those with abstract or monetary gain from pushing this agenda.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
siti
Well-Known Member
Well there we go - another expert opinion! I must admit - I'm glad to hear they've figured out how to make gasoline engines run without producing carbon monoxide - when did this happen exactly?