2020 Field

So, avoiding any of the other associated issues, and limiting ourselves to sea-level rise...since you’ve acknowledged the anthropogenic basis here: you similarly agree that a certain amount of sea-level rise is inevitable over the next several decades?
 
And, in principle, you agree with the idea that there’s a tipping point for glacial and continental ice-sheet melting?
 
Julio3000 said:
And, in principle, you agree with the idea that there’s a tipping point for glacial and continental ice-sheet melting?
Click to expand...

And what if we enter a new solar activity period whereby temperatures cool? What would happen to sea levels then?
 
thethe said:
And what if we enter a new solar activity period whereby temperatures cool? What would happen to sea levels then?
Click to expand...

I guess we could account for the fact that it may start raining fairy dust and blowjobs any day now. Seems like a smart thing to predicate your future on.
 
Julio3000 said:
I guess we could account for the fact that it may start raining fairy dust and blowjobs any day now. Seems like a smart thing to predicate your future on.
Click to expand...

Likewise... we should also completely dismantle the greatest economic engine in the world and implement population control measures to predicate our future on... bc, this time, they're gonna be right.

This was a fun read, if you wanna go through it.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
 
Has any of our media firefighters asked the 2020 candidates who say the climate crisis is the biggest of all the crisises (seriously, what isn't a crisis to these people?) why they chose not to vote in favor of the GND? They've all said they supported it... but none voted for it.

I haven't heard the question asked in the debates but maybe it was asked elsewhere... would love to hear the answer
 
sturg33 said:
If all the ice on the planet melts, yeah we will have quite a problem on our hands.

I do wonder when this will happen
Click to expand...

So, when do you think this will happen? I mean, sure, not any time soon. You and I will both be dead. But—and congrats for successfully continuing to evade the question—do you accept the scientific consensus that suggests that there is a comprehensible point of no return?

I’m really struggling to understand your point of view here. You seem to be accepting that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and accepting that it’s going to mean rising sea levels, but rejecting the projections of what this would mean because, in your words, scientists have been wrong about it for 100 years?

So, is the current consensus wrong, or not?
 
I said I think we can reasonably assume it's part of the equation.

I don't know why this is so challenging for folks to grasp. The earth has been warmer than it is today in its history. It's been colder. There has been more and less ice on the planet. There has been more carbon emissions than there are today. There are probably millions of things that affect climate on a daily basis and it's silly in sturg33's opinion to say that all the change we see is due to human activity.

The largest glacier in Greenland has been expanding now for three straight years, despite carbon emmissions significantly increasing over that time. What gives? Antarctic ice is expanding, despite global emmisions at all time highs. That seems odd, no?

Like I said... I'm not pretending to be some climate expert here. My opinion is such that, if it's true that human beings are the cause of the Earth's destruction, than human beings aren't going to be able to stop it. If we had the power to do so, I'd much rather the situation be solved by expanded prosperity with open markets and technology paving the way... not a monolithic government telling us we can't eat hamburgers anymore and should stop having babies. And that's before we even address the east who is the largest culprit of the CO2 problem.

We put our faith in the scientific community that has been wrong on this from the get go. The amount of time in which we've studied this is so small compared to the Earth's history that it's completely irrelevant. In the very micro (i.e. 100 years of a 4 billion year old planet), the climate is changing and we're feeling our way through on the causes and the outcomes. You'll have to forgive me for my skepticism that our incompetent government requires unrelenting power and control in order to save this... when they can't even run the post office for a profit.
 
Last edited:
yep fear :can'teyerollhardenough:

i love that you have like 5 wells for replies

and you just stick to em

you remind me of a so called leader in this country more and more

I'm not pretending to be some climate expert here. My opinion is such that, if it's true that human beings are the cause of the Earth's destruction, than human beings aren't going to be able to stop it.
Click to expand...

this sentence lol
 
sturg33 said:
I said I think we can reasonably assume it's part of the equation.

I don't know why this is so challenging for folks to grasp.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's as if every conservative/climate change denier has stock in Exxon.

Or is it that conservative people fear change of any kind?
 
sturg33 said:
[Tw]1176502005801660424[/tw]
Click to expand...

I see he’s eased up on millionaires and seems to be focusing on billionaires now.

Convenient.

"I wrote a best-selling book," the Vermont independent and self-described democratic socialist said. "If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too."
 
acesfull86 said:
I see he’s eased up on millionaires and seems to be focusing on billionaires now.

Convenient.

"I wrote a best-selling book," the Vermont independent and self-described democratic socialist said. "If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too."
Click to expand...

Sounds very boot-strappy
 
the argument is that, what if it's all bull**** and we just make the world a better place to live

has always been a weird counter argument
 
sturg33 said:
[Tw]1176502005801660424[/tw]
Click to expand...

She does realize that Gates is giving away almost all his money right? Like Gates basically agrees with Sanders's sentiment as he's putting billions of dollars back into the world via charities.

Anyway, Sanders is less griping on people like that and much more on people like say Jeff Bezos or the Waltons who accumulate wealth to continue to accumulate wealth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top