Bill Gates Recruiting Heads of States to Stir Action Against Climate Change

[Franco 0]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2182597-bill-gates-leads-global-call-to-accept-realities-of-a-warming-planet/

[coltssb 1,044]

I’m firm believer that the we are having some type of global warming. Not just because of the kooky weather that everyone is receiving now but because of Neil Tyson Degrasse. He spoke about this very thing. I’m paraphrasing because I don’t have the quotes, but said we rely on scientist for lots of things. They can even predict a comet to the second of when it will cross your sky, but when we tell you it’s happening, it’s a hoax. Good point.

[jessemoore97 1,279]

I’m firm believer that the we are having some type of global warming. Not just because of the kooky weather that everyone is receiving now but because of Neil Tyson Degrasse. He spoke about this very thing. I’m paraphrasing because I don’t have the quotes, but said we rely on scientist for lots of things. They can even predict a comet to the second of when it will cross your sky, but when we tell you it’s happening, it’s a hoax. Good point.

 

So just because something may be happening, I'm a hoaxer because I disagree with the causes attributed to it by the "mainstream"? Remember 30-40 years ago when global cooling was a thing? Some things are not understood well enough, such as the natural cycles of the Earth and Sun, and how that affects climate in the immediate and long term.

 

Not trying to insult you coltssb btw. There has been a lot of bad science, corruption, and plain old BS when it comes to this topic and how one agenda, which has been completely politicized, has been forced down people's throats. To question it, even among rational scientists, gets you labeled as a denier and will discredit you from ever being taken seriously. NDT unfortunately has fallen firmly into that crowd.

[Synoptico 334]

So just because something may be happening, I'm a hoaxer because I disagree with the causes attributed to it by the "mainstream"? Remember 30-40 years ago when global cooling was a thing? Some things are not understood well enough, such as the natural cycles of the Earth and Sun, and how that affects climate in the immediate and long term.

 

Not trying to insult you coltssb btw. There has been a lot of bad science, corruption, and plain old BS when it comes to this topic and how one agenda, which has been completely politicized, has been forced down people's throats. To question it, even among rational scientists, gets you labeled as a denier and will discredit you from ever being taken seriously. NDT unfortunately has fallen firmly into that crowd.

 

What is the downside to becoming more green and limiting greenhouse gases? Even if scientist are wrong as you believe, wouldnt you rather error on the side of them being right?

[jessemoore97 1,279]

What is the downside to becoming more green and limiting greenhouse gases? Even if scientist are wrong as you believe, wouldnt you rather error on the side of them being right?

 

Im all for not leaving the outdoors looking like a dump, wanting clean water and the like. Those ideas should be encouraged. But its a big leap to say those things are affecting the climate in some measurable way hot or cold.

 

Erring on the side of caution can also cause irreparable harm too. Carban dioxide is one of those greenhouse gases people bring up, yet it is the basic food source for Earths entire ecosystem. Studies from ice cores and the like show that our CO2 level isnt high at all compared to samples taken over a very long period of time. The Earth actually seems to be steadily decreasing those levels for an unknown reason even before the rise of civilization. Is that good or bad? No one seems to know. But we arent really contributing to it. If anything putting CO2 back into the atmosphere in a small way could have benefits.

 

Again erring on the side of caution means what? Believing cow farts or some other BS is causing something or that the cash grab that is carbon credits will do what they say it will?

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Im all for not leaving the outdoors looking like a dump, wanting clean water and the like. Those ideas should be encouraged. But its a big leap to say those things are affecting the climate in some measurable way hot or cold.

 

Erring on the side of caution can also cause irreparable harm too. Carban dioxide is one of those greenhouse gases people bring up, yet it is the basic food source for Earths entire ecosystem. Studies from ice cores and the like show that our CO2 level isnt high at all compared to samples taken over a very long period of time. The Earth actually seems to be steadily decreasing those levels for an unknown reason even before the rise of civilization. Is that good or bad? No one seems to know. But we arent really contributing to it. If anything putting CO2 back into the atmosphere in a small way could have benefits.

 

Again erring on the side of caution means what? Believing cow farts or some other BS is causing something or that the cash grab that is carbon credits will do what they say it will?

 

Well cows produce methane which is way worse than co2, reason why mass produced cows produce methane is the type of artificial grass they are fed. So yeah the whole system impacts the environment. If cows were to live off the natural land you wouldn’t have this discussion they would fart like every other species.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Jim2Dokes

[davislove 0]

What is the downside to becoming more green and limiting greenhouse gases? Even if scientist are wrong as you believe, wouldnt you rather error on the side of them being right?

 

I'm not sold on global warming . years ago, the midwest had tornados, southeast had hurricanes, northeast had blizzards, southwest had droughts and the west had earthquakes. They just wasn't filmed or had 24 hour news trying to kill time.

 

I have learned over the years that experts aren't always experts. According to some experts in the 80's and early 90's, earth would be uninhabitable by now. Yet here we are.

 

That said, what harm is erring on the side of caution?

 

I swear, if the left said people should drink more water, half of the republican party would be hospitalized with dehydration.

[jessemoore97 1,279]

Well cows produce methane which is way worse than co2, reason why mass produced cows produce methane is the type of artificial grass they are fed. So yeah the whole system impacts the environment. If cows were to live off the natural land you wouldn’t have this discussion they would fart like every other species.

 

No argument about cows and the natural feed. Our cows and the extended families livestock were primarily grass fed in pastures, supplemented with some treats like corn or oats. Farm raised beef or really anything is the way to go, big reason I love being where I am.

 

I still have to disagree with how much impact they have on climate change specifically.

[Franco 0]

So just because something may be happening, I'm a hoaxer because I disagree with the causes attributed to it by the "mainstream"?

 

Alright, let's take this beat by beat:

 

Remember 30-40 years ago when global cooling was a thing?

Nope, that was a Time magazine headline and was mostly spread by the media. Most peer-reviewed scientific papers were firm that the earth is warming, not cooling

 

Some things are not understood well enough, such as the natural cycles of the Earth and Sun, and how that affects climate in the immediate and long term.

These things are very well understood, including the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; this has been established for over 120 years

 

Not trying to insult you coltssb btw. There has been a lot of bad science, corruption, and plain old BS when it comes to this topic and how one agenda, which has been completely politicized, has been forced down people's throats. To question it, even among rational scientists, gets you labeled as a denier and will discredit you from ever being taken seriously. NDT unfortunately has fallen firmly into that crowd.

 

So what bad science is there? Do you have a source?

[Franco 0]

Im all for not leaving the outdoors looking like a dump, wanting clean water and the like. Those ideas should be encouraged. But its a big leap to say those things are affecting the climate in some measurable way hot or cold.

 

No one has said that keeping the water clean will help climate change (although it couldn't hurt)

 

Erring on the side of caution can also cause irreparable harm too. Carban dioxide is one of those greenhouse gases people bring up, yet it is the basic food source for Earths entire ecosystem.

No scientist is refuting this fact either

 

Studies from ice cores and the like show that our CO2 level isnt high at all compared to samples taken over a very long period of time.

 

Again, no scientist has ever said it wasn't warmer before or that the CO2 levels weren't higher before. The problem is the speed at which things are changing

 

The Earth actually seems to be steadily decreasing those levels for an unknown reason even before the rise of civilization. Is that good or bad? No one seems to know. But we arent really contributing to it.

Which studies are showing this? Please provide a peer-review paper that says CO2 levels are decreasing

 

If anything putting CO2 back into the atmosphere in a small way could have benefits.

What benefits are there?

 

 

Again erring on the side of caution means what? Believing cow farts or some other BS is causing something or that the cash grab that is carbon credits will do what they say it will?

Methane from cow farts and CO2 have been established as greenhouse gases for 120 years Edited October 17, 2018 by Franco

[Franco 0]

I'm not sold on global warming . years ago, the midwest had tornados, southeast had hurricanes, northeast had blizzards, southwest had droughts and the west had earthquakes. They just wasn't filmed or had 24 hour news trying to kill time.

And?

 

I have learned over the years that experts aren't always experts. According to some experts in the 80's and early 90's, earth would be uninhabitable by now. Yet here we are.

Sources?

[Pregame 291]

I'll go ahead and say it: You're an *sshole if you do not understand global warming. Similar to being an *sshole if you believe the Earth is flat or that Pepsi is better than Coke.

 

Happy?

[irishwavend 571]

Great....

 

1) Empirical evidence says climate change is questionable and not nearly as close to being the great catastrophe the left argues.

 

2) The models are crap - garbage in = garbage out on the data.

 

3) There is no scientific method being employed, because any dissent is squashed and not honestly considered...a key element of the scientific method. Instead, liberal professors seeking free money from grants have appropriated the term "science" to continue their crusade.

 

4) If we can't survive climate change, how do we EVER expect to colonize the solar system?

 

The hysteria is a joke that is supported by the world's worst hypocrites and a mob of mainly ignorant people who know nothing of the substance behind the issue...just a headline. I have seen numerous colleagues come out of college, grow in their understanding of the world, and then convert from advocating against climate change to becoming ambivalent about the hysteria. Yes, it's good practice to recycle and pick up and use resources wisely, but the hysteria is unnecessary.

[irishwavend 571]

I'll go ahead and say it: You're an *sshole if you do not understand global warming. Similar to being an *sshole if you believe the Earth is flat or that Pepsi is better than Coke.

 

Happy?

 

Typical. Understanding global warming is not as simple as a bunch of liberal arts majors make it out to be. Its not more than a political football to be carried around. The only people claiming the world is flat are the global warming advocates who don't understand real science, because, again, they're liberal arts majors meaning they have no real technical skills except the ability to write, which is even questionable...

[Franco 0]

Great....

 

1) Empirical evidence says climate change is questionable and not nearly as close to being the great catastrophe the left argues.

Where is this empirical evidence? Can you link us to a credible source?

 

2) The models are crap - garbage in = garbage out on the data.

Again, what models specifically? source?

 

3) There is no scientific method being employed, because any dissent is squashed and not honestly considered...a key element of the scientific method. Instead, liberal professors seeking free money from grants have appropriated the term "science" to continue their crusade.

lol oh great...this argument again...instead of screaming that it's a conspiracy, why not address the facts that are put forth by the world's scientists?

 

4) If we can't survive climate change, how do we EVER expect to colonize the solar system?

I completely agree with you! We need to focus on this planet and not look to colonize others

 

The hysteria is a joke that is supported by the world's worst hypocrites and a mob of mainly ignorant people who know nothing of the substance behind the issue...just a headline. I have seen numerous colleagues come out of college, grow in their understanding of the world, and then convert from advocating against climate change to becoming ambivalent about the hysteria. Yes, it's good practice to recycle and pick up and use resources wisely, but the hysteria is unnecessary.

 

These aren't headlines. Sure the average person may not have read the thousands of peer-review papers supporting the premise of man-made climate change and its dangers, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening

[Franco 0]

Typical. Understanding global warming is not as simple as a bunch of liberal arts majors make it out to be. Its not more than a political football to be carried around. The only people claiming the world is flat are the global warming advocates who don't understand real science, because, again, they're liberal arts majors meaning they have no real technical skills except the ability to write, which is even questionable...

 

You're absolutely right...climate change is VERY complicated....so shouldn't we leave it to the experts that individually, have dozens of years of experience in the field?

[Pregame 291]

Typical. Understanding global warming is not as simple as a bunch of liberal arts majors make it out to be. Its not more than a political football to be carried around. The only people claiming the world is flat are the global warming advocates who don't understand real science, because, again, they're liberal arts majors meaning they have no real technical skills except the ability to write, which is even questionable...

Listen sweetheart, I think you meant to say It's*. If you're going to question anyone's ability to write, take a look at your own work first. You're a lawyer, you know not to hand in the first draft of anything.

 

Also, this isn't a political issue. Nor did I make it a political issue. It is a fact that the Earth is experiencing increasing average temperatures (See: NASA- https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/). It's (see how that works?) FoxNews fed lap dogs, like yourself, who claim there's political motive, liberal bias, and George Soros sponsored boogeymen feeding this false narrative of Global Warming. Seriously, what does creating a fake Global Warming issue accomplish? Cui bono.

 

It is not a political issue. It is not a debatable issue. The environment is something that needs to be monitored, addressed, and hopefully, altered before it is too late.

 

Not that me typing anything on my keyboard is going to change opinions, but please, go to unbiased sources, look at the raw data, and try to see the numbers for what they are; not what the Koch Brothers want you to see. As mentioned, what is the harm in trying?

[davislove 0]

And?

 

And things are sensationalized for ratings. I can't say for certain whats true or not but I have recently seen the cable media hype 2 hurricanes (faking strong winds and all) but seem as though they couldn't care less about the people devastated in the aftermath. They know what gets the ratings

 

 

Sources?

 

Source is I saw an old politically incorrect show on youtube where some weather expert claimed disaster by 2010. It's easy to project into the distant future.

 

I used to work outdoors as a youngster and would rely on the weather man to let me know if I needed an umbrella. I got wet many a days. Now I know weather and climate are 2 different things but if you can't tell if it's gonna rain in 2 days, don't tell me you can predict climate 30 years down the line.

 

I have a really old set of encyclopedias and it's fascinating to read what "expert" knew in those days compared to today. Like Gorillas cannot live in captivity for example.

 

I remember watching the OJ trial and they presented a "glove expert". Really? He just happen to work in sales.

 

As a kid I grew up being taught in school that boys and girls act differently because boys are taught to play sports and be tough while girls are given dolls. Today we know that you can raise a boy as a girl or vice versa but they still may identify with the gender they are born into.

 

is Pluto a planet or not? My old encyclopedias says "what is a Pluto?"

 

Like I said, it may all be true but I'm not jumping in with both feet just yet.

[corysold 0]

Sure the average person may not have read the thousands of peer-review papers supporting the premise of man-made climate change and its dangers, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening

 

Just because it is peer reviewed, doesn't mean it is right.

 

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

 

When reviewing goes wrong: the ugly side of peer review

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/editors-update/when-reviewing-goes-wrong-the-ugly-side-of-peer-review

 

The peer-review system for academic papers is badly in need of repair

http://theconversation.com/the-peer-review-system-for-academic-papers-is-badly-in-need-of-repair-72669

 

Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems

https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems

 

Modern Scientists Are Wrong Far More Than You Think

https://psmag.com/education/scientists-are-wrong-a-lot

 

The "ether" where light traveled was science fact, until it wasn't.

 

The Earth being flat was science fact, until it wasn't.

 

Pluto was a planet, until it wasn't.

 

The Universe's expansion couldn't be speeding up, until it was.

 

Flies were thought to be spontaneously created, until they weren't.

 

Smoking was good for you, until it wasn't.

 

That isn't to say that Global Warming might not be exactly what current science says it is. But "Peer reviewed papers say it is true" doesn't exactly mean it is true.

[Pregame 291]

Just because it is peer reviewed, doesn't mean it is right.

 

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

 

When reviewing goes wrong: the ugly side of peer review

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/editors-update/when-reviewing-goes-wrong-the-ugly-side-of-peer-review

 

The peer-review system for academic papers is badly in need of repair

http://theconversation.com/the-peer-review-system-for-academic-papers-is-badly-in-need-of-repair-72669

 

Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems

https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems

 

Modern Scientists Are Wrong Far More Than You Think

https://psmag.com/education/scientists-are-wrong-a-lot

 

The "ether" where light traveled was science fact, until it wasn't.

 

The Earth being flat was science fact, until it wasn't.

 

Pluto was a planet, until it wasn't.

 

The Universe's expansion couldn't be speeding up, until it was.

 

Flies were thought to be spontaneously created, until they weren't.

 

Smoking was good for you, until it wasn't.

 

That isn't to say that Global Warming might not be exactly what current science says it is. But "Peer reviewed papers say it is true" doesn't exactly mean it is true.

The knowledge that the Earth is a sphere predates the invention of paper, so it is very unlikely that "the Earth is flat" was in any peer-reviewed paper of note.