Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[WMD]

The Greta Thunberg Helpline
For adults angry at a child

https://twitter.com/i/status/1177178666402365440

[ICantLogIn]

“The planet is fine. The people are fucked”

- George Carlin

[SkiCougar]

“The planet is fine. The people are fucked”

- George Carlin

People were just for plastic.

[basinbeater]

Give me a break. This is what she looks like when she doesn't have a script to read from:


Her message is fed to her by activisists. You think she is operating on her own? I've already attacked her message. Her UN speech was total hysteria BS about people suffering and dying from climate change, mass extinctions, etc. Its a joke.

I wonder how you guys would feel if Exxon found a nice little poor Indian girl to parade around and give speeches about how unfair it is that the first world wants to prevent her from using fossil fuels.

The same Exxon whose internal scientists came to the same conclusion as the girl, that humans were causing climate change, and instead of doing the right thing (and they did deliberate about whether to do the right thing,) they chose to launch a campaign of misinformation and doubt, a campaign which succeeded in fooling you, and now you push their agenda. That Exxon?

sent from Utah.

[SumJongGuy]

[SlyFoxxx]

This problem won't be solved by emotions/ideals.

Alarmists just keep saying there is a problem, but the solutions are vague. Saying "we need to cut carbon emissions by half in 12 years" isn't a real answer. Who specifically needs to cut them by half? I would bet a lot of alarmists (especially celebrities) have a larger carbon footprint than a lot of deniers.. So what is the magic number in metric tons of carbon that an individual needs to stay under per year? How would taxing excess combat it specifically?

A real answer would be "individuals need to be limited to (X) carbon emissions in (X) amount of time and this is exactly how we do it.." Until someone can do that, the debate will continue.. The answer doesn't lie in politics, that's for damn sure.

I also don't believe lithium batteries and solar panels made from silicon, silver and aluminum are the answer.. Sodium and hydrogen batteries are the future. Producing millions of lithium batteries is like taking one step forward and two steps back. Lithium mines are as bad as drilling for oil and 70% of deposits are concentrated in Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. That's a problem..

Sent from my SM-G950U using TGR Forums mobile app

[DaveTV]

[skiballs]

^There's your answer, rationed carbon footprint, everyone gets x amount.
I just want a piece of the resale market. That's where the money will be.

[reckless toboggan]

Cap and trade, sin taxes, and regulation to phase it out: per leaded fuel / acid rain, per CFCs, per cigarettes, etc etc etc etc etc.

[BGnight]

It's sad how bad the left is at memes. Follow some ancaps or libertarians if you want to see how it's done.

[BGnight]

People were just for plastic.

Fuck I forgot how brilliant this was

[BGnight]

This problem won't be solved by emotions/ideals.

Alarmists just keep saying there is a problem, but the solutions are vague. Saying "we need to cut carbon emissions by half in 12 years" isn't a real answer. Who specifically needs to cut them by half? I would bet a lot of alarmists (especially celebrities) have a larger carbon footprint than a lot of deniers.. So what is the magic number in metric tons of carbon that an individual needs to stay under per year? How would taxing excess combat it specifically?

A real answer would be "individuals need to be limited to (X) carbon emissions in (X) amount of time and this is exactly how we do it.." Until someone can do that, the debate will continue.. The answer doesn't lie in politics, that's for damn sure.

I also don't believe lithium batteries and solar panels made from silicon, silver and aluminum are the answer.. Sodium and hydrogen batteries are the future. Producing millions of lithium batteries is like taking one step forward and two steps back. Lithium mines are as bad as drilling for oil and 70% of deposits are concentrated in Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. That's a problem..

Sent from my SM-G950U using TGR Forums mobile app

Stop cluttering up my troll fest with common sense posts, sir.

[mcski]

TEH CHEMTRAILZ!!!

[simple]

It's sad how bad the left is at memes. Follow some ancaps or libertarians if you want to see how it's done.

Sorry but both theleftcantmeme and therightcantmeme exist on reddit. Too bad that there are 76k members on the right version and only 1.6k members on the left.

Tells me left are better than right at meme. Way better....

[BGnight]

Sorry but both theleftcantmeme and therightcantmeme exist on reddit. Too bad that there are 76k members on the right version and only 1.6k members on the left.

Tells me left are better than right at meme. Way better....

Ancaps and libertarians aren't Republicans (nor right) and your logic makes zero sense.

[SB]

I miss George

[ron johnson]

The same Exxon whose internal scientists came to the same conclusion as the girl, that humans were causing climate change, and instead of doing the right thing (and they did deliberate about whether to do the right thing,) they chose to launch a campaign of misinformation and doubt, a campaign which succeeded in fooling you, and now you push their agenda. That Exxon?

sent from Utah.

Do you have a link to where the Exxon scientists found that in 2019 people would be suffering and dying from global warming? That global warming is causing an extinction crisis? That ecosystems are collapsing? That 16 year old girls from Sweden can no longer live out their dreams?

I, and 99% of deniers do not question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that humans have contributed to warming the planet. The question is how much warming humans and are responsible for and how dangerous it is. You are fooling yourself if you think there is a consensus on that.

[simple]

Ancaps and libertarians aren't Republicans (nor right) and your logic makes zero sense.

Your mother was an ancap. Your dad was a libertarian. What does that make you?

[dan_pdx]

Do you have a link to where the Exxon scientists found that in 2019 people would be suffering and dying from global warming? That global warming is causing an extinction crisis? That ecosystems are collapsing? That 16 year old girls from Sweden can no longer live out their dreams?

I, and 99% of deniers do not question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that humans have contributed to warming the planet. The question is how much warming humans and are responsible for and how dangerous it is. You are fooling yourself if you think there is a consensus on that.

I'm calling BS on the 99% number you claimed, going to need some sources for that.

[grinch]

Sounds reasonable

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[2FUNKY]

[SumJongGuy]

Do you have a link to where the Exxon scientists found that in 2019 people would be suffering and dying from global warming? That global warming is causing an extinction crisis? That ecosystems are collapsing? That 16 year old girls from Sweden can no longer live out their dreams?

I, and 99% of deniers do not question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that humans have contributed to warming the planet. The question is how much warming humans and are responsible for and how dangerous it is. You are fooling yourself if you think there is a consensus on that.

Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago

The big five mass extinctions

Great Barrier Reef suffers 89% collapse in new coral after bleaching events

How disappearing sea ice has put Arctic ecosystem under threat

[stuckathuntermtn]

Conservatives: kids these days suck and don't stand for anything
*Kid stands for something*
She's just a shill! Hitler Youth! Mentally ill!


Get fucked.

[ron johnson]

Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago

Okay? Have I ever defended Exxon?

The big five mass extinctions

Definitely doesn't make it look like we are in the midst of a 6th mass extinction. Even if we were, as I have already demonstrated, it has nothing to do with global warming.

Great Barrier Reef suffers 89% collapse in new coral after bleaching events

Bleaching is not a new phenomenon and corals can recover from it. We are seeing this in the Great Barrier Reef:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ns-of-recovery

Peter Ridd, an Australian scientist who was fired by his university for his criticism of research done on the effects on climate change on the GBR, just won an unfair dismissal lawsuit against his university for $1.2MM: https://www.theepochtimes.com/austra...e_2881944.html

The conclusion of a paper he wrote:

"Due to the remarkable mechanisms that corals have developed to adapt to changing temperatures, especially the ability to swap symbionts, corals are perhaps the least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change – natural or man-made. The corals found on the GBR also live in waters closer to the equator which are considerably warmer. Coral generally grow faster in warmer waters, so it should not be surprising that there has been, perhaps, a 10% increase in calcification rates at the GBR since the 1940s.

Yet, so many are convinced that the GBR is under threat due to the fact that when corals die, they tend to do it in spectacular ways with events which make excellent images for the media. Then there are the many ‘scientific studies’ which have never been replicated or properly checked, that conclude imminent demise.

There are serious problems with quality assurance in many areas of science and possibly more so for GBR policy-science. Not only are there the normal science distorting factors such as only being able to get funding where there is a problem to be solved, there is also the problem that many marine scientists are emotionally attached to their subject. The world needs people who care for the environment and many of these scientists have signed up for a career of relative poverty to pursue marine biology. However, given these emotional pressures together with the lack of a formal quality assurance mechanism, and documented examples of misinterpretation of data, we can be skeptical of claims that the GBR is in peril."

https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com...re-changes.pdf

How disappearing sea ice has put Arctic ecosystem under threat

Since the start of MASIE records in 2006, there has been no trend in Arctic sea ice extent:

[basinbeater]

Ron, Ron. What is your argument exactly? Your obfuscation continues unabated. What do you believe?

I and most other thinking people believe what 97% of scientists say. Global warming is happening and is being driven by human behaviour.

Here is a short list from NASA of a few scientific organizations and their statements regarding the topic.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2



American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3



American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4



American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5



American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6



American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7



American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8



The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES

International Academies: Joint Statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10



U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES



U.S. Global Change Research Program

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES



Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

OTHER RESOURCES

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html

U.S. Agencies

The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/upl...-are-doing.pdf

*Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).

As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture. Eventually, a group of hypotheses might be integrated and generalized into a scientific theory, a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.



sent from Utah.