Climate change isn't real let alone anthropogenic.
Destroying whole forests and farmland for cheap/dense housing to hold all the illegal immigrants who won't fix their shit in their lands? Yeah - that's real.
Think that affects the water supplies in the area? Oh yeah. (Wondering why there's a drought in California when rainfalls have been statistically average? That's why)
Think that affects the energy supply? medical supply? police? cars?
Now do you think anybody in California REALLY cares about "Climate Change"? Or is that just a lie, created by Enron, to create the first bitcoin and told to children to get them to eat their bugs ?
Climate change isn't real let alone anthropogenic.
Destroying whole forests and farmland for cheap/dense housing to hold all the illegal immigrants who won't fix their shit in their lands? Yeah - that's real
I get the point you're making (or at least trying to make), but these two statements are directly contradictory. Man changes the climate by altering the environment (Forest->Grassland->Suburban->Urban.) Is weather (temperature, rainfall, etc.) changing due to this? Yes, but to an extent that's within the natural fluctuations that occur over time without human intervention.
Now, is humanity feeling the effects of climate more severely than the (recent) past? Definitely, but this has more to do with us making the bare minimum in infrastructure investments, and failing to account for the fact that the ground temperature in an urban or suburban environment where all the trees are newly planted is going to be higher than a rural environment with trees that are decades or centuries old.
Climate Change is absolutely real, even if you don't like the anthropogenic part.
If you can't accept that temperatures were different in previous eons, when the day-night cycle and the atmospheric concertation was different, then there's nothing to talk about. If you don't think the different element concentrations and day-night cycle don't effect climate, then there's no reason for me to believe that fossil evidence of tropical conditions would convince you. Ever.
Frankly, I don't understand why you would imagine humans could alter their immediate environment, if you don't believe that the climate changes.
Destroying whole forests and farmland for cheap/dense housing to hold all the illegal immigrants who won't fix their shit in their lands?
If you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, you don't believe that the destruction of forests can have any effect, despite it having immediately measurable effects. By your logic, there is no explanation for any climatic outcome for bulldozing a forest and putting up apartments would have any effect.
I would hope so, but as with evolution, this shit is climate change is the result of infinitely many minute changes. I've actually heard some, very un-smart people, say that the climate doesn't change. These are also the kinds of people that think psychology doesn't real.
And truly, the industrial revolution and that ballooning of the human population into multiple billions must have an effect.
If you kill all the sparrows in China, you get a locus horde. This devastates tons of plant life. You're going to see knock on effects if you were to keep that population down to zero. When you do the inverse of this, for the dominant species on the planet, with the ability to have industrial capacity, you're going to have some climate change. Even if it's as simple as accelerating what was already happening.
It's called WEATHER. Natural forces (the sun, moon, volcanic reactions, geothermal reactions, tectonic shifts) are THOUSANDS of times more altering to "climate change" than anything man does.
Can man alter the local ENVIRONMENT? YES. See smog in Los Angeles years ago, see all the waste flushed into the waters. We call that pollution. See what Japan has done to get more landmass, converting land to towns and cities - we call that building. I'm all for cleaning up pollution and reducing public waste (I draw the line at plastic straws though).
So what IS Climate Change, the thing you think you're all excited about because you've been appropriately educated on but are just a brainwashed propagandized NPC on? It's all about the CARBON OFFSETS. Y'know... that stuff cars and coal burning put into the air? Enron effectively monetized carbon by creating carbon CREDITS. How does a company get to be net zero and "fight Climate Change(tm)"? Well.. by first reducing their carbon burning... Buying energy from wind and solar farms and not coal... but that's nigh impossible now so how else do you do it? Well by buying CARBON CREDITS which nullify your CARBON OFFSETS. Those credits are supposed to go to things like building out the rain forests and protecting them or building new wind and solar farms, etc; But funny thing... turns out that almost never happens... the money (like taxes) goes to other things. And this is what the WHOLE "Climate Change" scam is all about. It's not about solving carbon pollution, because if it WERE, we'd all be going nuclear which is clean, safe and provides more than enough energy for the populace - it's about embezzling money and you have to keep the carbon pollution around to... well... keep the spice flowing...
If you can't accept that temperatures were different in previous eons, when the day-night cycle and the atmospheric concertation was different, then there's nothing to talk about. If you don't think the different element concentrations and day-night cycle don't effect climate, then there's no reason for me to believe that fossil evidence of tropical conditions would convince you. Ever.
I do believe in this. Which is exactly why I think the "anthropogenic" part is inadequately proven. How the hell are you using "the climate changes drastically over long periods of time throughout the Earth's history" to support the conclusion that any climate change we see must therefore be the work of man?
Because the changes in temperature are never as sudden as the speed we've seen since the industrial revolution. It's accelerated in a way that doesn't naturally occur anywhere else.
We have effectively (or are effectively) ending the Ice Age over the span of 200-300 years. Major planetary transitions like this ten to take at least 10,000 years, but could take as long as several hundred thousand years. The new normals then last tens of millions of years.
The magnitude of the change is smaller, but the rate of change hasn't been matched outside of mass extinction events. We're not as fast as a 6 mile wide asteroid hitting Mexico, but we're certainly causing a rapid change, and one that isn't likely to only continue at this fast pace given the melting perma-frost emitting methane into the atmosphere.
There's a beautiful article about 'rapid temperature change' on Wattsupwiththat. It's a generalization of McIntyre's idea that the 'hockeystick graph' is a numerical artifact.
It makes sense to me. And from hints that you dropped about a year ago, I get the feeling that you're pretty good at math yourself, so it might make sense to you, too.
Climate change isn't real let alone anthropogenic.
Destroying whole forests and farmland for cheap/dense housing to hold all the illegal immigrants who won't fix their shit in their lands? Yeah - that's real. Think that affects the water supplies in the area? Oh yeah. (Wondering why there's a drought in California when rainfalls have been statistically average? That's why) Think that affects the energy supply? medical supply? police? cars?
Now do you think anybody in California REALLY cares about "Climate Change"? Or is that just a lie, created by Enron, to create the first bitcoin and told to children to get them to eat their bugs ?
I get the point you're making (or at least trying to make), but these two statements are directly contradictory. Man changes the climate by altering the environment (Forest->Grassland->Suburban->Urban.) Is weather (temperature, rainfall, etc.) changing due to this? Yes, but to an extent that's within the natural fluctuations that occur over time without human intervention.
Now, is humanity feeling the effects of climate more severely than the (recent) past? Definitely, but this has more to do with us making the bare minimum in infrastructure investments, and failing to account for the fact that the ground temperature in an urban or suburban environment where all the trees are newly planted is going to be higher than a rural environment with trees that are decades or centuries old.
Climate Change is absolutely real, even if you don't like the anthropogenic part.
If you can't accept that temperatures were different in previous eons, when the day-night cycle and the atmospheric concertation was different, then there's nothing to talk about. If you don't think the different element concentrations and day-night cycle don't effect climate, then there's no reason for me to believe that fossil evidence of tropical conditions would convince you. Ever.
Frankly, I don't understand why you would imagine humans could alter their immediate environment, if you don't believe that the climate changes.
If you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, you don't believe that the destruction of forests can have any effect, despite it having immediately measurable effects. By your logic, there is no explanation for any climatic outcome for bulldozing a forest and putting up apartments would have any effect.
Predates Enron.
He obviously means that man-made climate change isn't real, not that the climate doesn't change naturally over time.
I would hope so, but as with evolution, this shit is climate change is the result of infinitely many minute changes. I've actually heard some, very un-smart people, say that the climate doesn't change. These are also the kinds of people that think psychology doesn't real.
And truly, the industrial revolution and that ballooning of the human population into multiple billions must have an effect.
If you kill all the sparrows in China, you get a locus horde. This devastates tons of plant life. You're going to see knock on effects if you were to keep that population down to zero. When you do the inverse of this, for the dominant species on the planet, with the ability to have industrial capacity, you're going to have some climate change. Even if it's as simple as accelerating what was already happening.
It's called WEATHER. Natural forces (the sun, moon, volcanic reactions, geothermal reactions, tectonic shifts) are THOUSANDS of times more altering to "climate change" than anything man does.
Can man alter the local ENVIRONMENT? YES. See smog in Los Angeles years ago, see all the waste flushed into the waters. We call that pollution. See what Japan has done to get more landmass, converting land to towns and cities - we call that building. I'm all for cleaning up pollution and reducing public waste (I draw the line at plastic straws though).
So what IS Climate Change, the thing you think you're all excited about because you've been appropriately educated on but are just a brainwashed propagandized NPC on? It's all about the CARBON OFFSETS. Y'know... that stuff cars and coal burning put into the air? Enron effectively monetized carbon by creating carbon CREDITS. How does a company get to be net zero and "fight Climate Change(tm)"? Well.. by first reducing their carbon burning... Buying energy from wind and solar farms and not coal... but that's nigh impossible now so how else do you do it? Well by buying CARBON CREDITS which nullify your CARBON OFFSETS. Those credits are supposed to go to things like building out the rain forests and protecting them or building new wind and solar farms, etc; But funny thing... turns out that almost never happens... the money (like taxes) goes to other things. And this is what the WHOLE "Climate Change" scam is all about. It's not about solving carbon pollution, because if it WERE, we'd all be going nuclear which is clean, safe and provides more than enough energy for the populace - it's about embezzling money and you have to keep the carbon pollution around to... well... keep the spice flowing...
Drink some more Kool aid lolol
I do believe in this. Which is exactly why I think the "anthropogenic" part is inadequately proven. How the hell are you using "the climate changes drastically over long periods of time throughout the Earth's history" to support the conclusion that any climate change we see must therefore be the work of man?
Because the changes in temperature are never as sudden as the speed we've seen since the industrial revolution. It's accelerated in a way that doesn't naturally occur anywhere else.
We have effectively (or are effectively) ending the Ice Age over the span of 200-300 years. Major planetary transitions like this ten to take at least 10,000 years, but could take as long as several hundred thousand years. The new normals then last tens of millions of years.
The magnitude of the change is smaller, but the rate of change hasn't been matched outside of mass extinction events. We're not as fast as a 6 mile wide asteroid hitting Mexico, but we're certainly causing a rapid change, and one that isn't likely to only continue at this fast pace given the melting perma-frost emitting methane into the atmosphere.
There's a beautiful article about 'rapid temperature change' on Wattsupwiththat. It's a generalization of McIntyre's idea that the 'hockeystick graph' is a numerical artifact.
It makes sense to me. And from hints that you dropped about a year ago, I get the feeling that you're pretty good at math yourself, so it might make sense to you, too.