The oceans are sinking!

I don't think there is much debate about climate change. The earth's climate has gone through cycles of change since, like, forever. Hell, if the climate had not changed in the past it would be rough going right now. Life would be much more difficult, if not impossible. Those changes happened naturally, humans did not create those changes, and could not have prevented those changes.

It is debatable the degree human activity is responsible for any current changes, and whether human activity can reverse changes, or manipulate change. It might seem petty, to some, but there is room for debate over the motives of expert alarmists, their desire for a transfer of wealth to somehow influence climate change, their insistence for sacrifice from so many while at the same time flying around the globe on private jets and purchasing multiple large homes in multiple locations, including along coastlines they proclaim are threatened by climate change sea level rise. Then we have stuff like we see here in the op of this thread. You know why we have not seen global warming climate change sea level rise as rapidly as predicted? Why, it is because the oceans are sinking! If global warming is real, then why is it so damned cold? Why, because it's not global warming, it's climate change!

It is like the goal posts are constantly moving. Doomsday alarmists have told us if we do not do this or that, surrender independence, liberty, largesse, sovereignty to a less than equitable global effort, in X number of years catastrophe. Some of those dates have passed. So, they revise, and revise. I think lately they are going more the safer 100 year timeline, understandably.

I don't know....that's more than I intended to write. Apologies for being long winded.
 
The oceans are sinking! :eek:

Discuss.

Sure. Let's do this but can we take it down to its most basic level and the point of the thread? Thanks.

If you(not you specifically) are a die hard Republican, man-made climate change is a joke and there's definitely a study out there to prove it. If you(not you specifically) are a die hard liberal, man-made climate change is a real threat to humanity and there's definitely a study out there to prove it. If you are a climatologist, humans are definitely contributing to the warming of the planet's oceans which in turn is leading to changing global environmental conditions which are quantifiable through data that you(the climatologist) and 97% of your colleagues(who are also climatologists) can provide for people on audio forum to ignore because those people aren't scientists and never claimed to be.
 
Sounds of the just shut up and let the experts speak and handle things, which is fine. But most often one can opt out if one chooses, not held in contempt and potentially at gunpoint to toe the line.

Of that 97% figure, if true and said with such certainty, how and where is that quantified? If true, what of the 3%? The 3%, stand to lose prestige, grants and funding, potentially even their livelihood, their job. The 97%, the opposite. Yet the 3% still stand. I don't know, one might tend to give more credence to the opinion of those who have the most to lose.

There has been some talk that to deny global warming climate change, a criminal act. Criminal acts usually result in punishment. Not exactly a welcoming environment to conduct an honest debate, no pun intended. That the number might be as high as 3%, somewhat surprising. Though I have no evidence, I suspect the 3% number is actually quite higher.
 
...there is room for debate over the motives of expert alarmists, their desire for a transfer of wealth...

You trust Republican politicians so much that you are skeptical of everyday professional scientists. You will never have a fact-based outlook on this issue until you change that.
 
If we could just have someone come into the thread to provide links. Maybe a Washington Post, Snopes, Fact Checkers, something!

:D
 
There is a percentage of the population that can't be convinced to even take the conservative(not politics, but the safe option) side of the argument no matter what you show them. Which is fine because the stock market is at a blah blah blah, Bengazi, the emails, blah blah blah. It's pointless to have the conversation. It's like trying to convince people, and usually the same group that those aren't chemtrails, vaccines help society, and George Bush did not order 9/11, and Alex Jones is a f*cking lunatic. Pointless. But every forum(I guess) needs its Ghost of FM and here it is.

---------- Update ----------

There is a percentage of the population that can't be convinced to even take the conservative(not politics, but the safe option) side of the argument no matter what you show them. Which is fine because the stock market is at a blah blah blah, Bengazi, the emails, blah blah blah. It's pointless to have the conversation. It's like trying to convince people, and usually the same group that those aren't chemtrails, vaccines help society, and George Bush did not order 9/11, and Alex Jones is a f*cking lunatic. Pointless. But every forum(I guess) needs its Ghost of FM and here it is.

Post reported.
 
You trust Republican politicians so much that you are skeptical of everyday professional scientists. You will never have a fact-based outlook on this issue until you change that.

When did I ever mention "Republican politicians"?

See, that is part of the problem. This whole global warming climate change thing has been so politicized. It is almost like one can't be a true blue liberal democrat without going full tilt in support of the existence of global warming climate change. How many true blue liberal democrats have a fact-based opinion, rather than just toeing the party line? For that matter, how many climatologists have an actual fact based opinion, rather than basing their opinion on facts and figures provided to them by the high priests of global warming climate change?

Eh, whatever. Let's try not to politicize this thread.
 
Sure.

Facts are certainly more welcome than thinly veiled and irrelevant attempts at insult.

Present some facts, sources. I would be equally interested in the inclusion of facts from those who disagree with the calamity that is man-made-global-warming-climate-change, limited to 3%, of course.

I would also be interested in solutions, if available. How is dipping into my pocket going to solve global warming climate change?
 
On second thought, i'm not interested in any facts, rabbit hole.

You're welcome.

Let's talk solutions. Do we really have the ability to manipulate the weather/climate? What are the solutions, the costs, who pays the cost, who determines who pays the cost, where does the money go, how much does it cost, who is going to get filthy rich off of the entire deal......and why the fuck did Al Gore buy a beachfront mansion several years ago when at the time he proclaimed it would be swallowed up by rising sea levels a few years ago? :D
 
You trust Republican politicians so much that you are skeptical of everyday professional scientists. You will never have a fact-based outlook on this issue until you change that.

You really think that not buying certain studys automatically makes someone a Republican? That's ridiculous.

And the question comes up, who is paying these scientists?
I sincerely doubt that those in the climate change industry would accept an outcome that proved 'global warming' or 'climate change' turned out to be a hoax.
I'm not saying it is or isn't. I simply don't know. Im not privy to all the information.

I do know I don't trust these pricks.Both Republican and Democrat are just the wings of the vulture that is only interested in picking our bones clean.

I don't think they care about the planet at all. Here in the US are all these draconian regulations and laws to supposedly combat negative human impact on the planet. Yet in China it's all cool. You can engage in all sorts of harmful to the planet practices.
Last I looked China was on the globe. It's not like it's some off world maufacturing planet unto it's own. :D
 
Last edited:
Who's dipping into your pocket? How much are you out so far?

It is not as if they haven't tried. I mentioned Canada earlier in this thread. Maybe the question can be directed towards citizens of that country? The government there has signed on to the global warming climate change dotted line, carbon taxes, added costs to fuel, other taxes, and such. Yeah, they were trying to do that here. Only someone who isn't paying attention would not know.

As an aside: It's been cold as a mofo here. Record cold, a shitload of snow fell, also. Man, what a mess. Had to leave faucets dripping to prevent pipe freeze. It can also be advisable to leave cabinet doors under sinks open to let ambient heat in your home to enter, many such pipes are located inside the outer walls of homes. Living in California you might now know this. There was a time when, if you had a light in your crawl space, or even a drop light would do, the heat from the light bulb would put off just enough heat to prevent frozen pipes. Those times are pretty much gone, incandescent bulbs are not available or are difficult to find. A law was passed that phased them out, made it illegal to produce them within the US. The new fluorescent bulbs do not produce heat(bye bye easy bake oven :(). They cost more. Contain mercury. Must/should be disposed of other than simply tossing in the trash, the mercury could seep into water supplies, bodies of water, the ocean, contaminate fish, etc. I dropped one on the floor one day. I have 2 dogs that are constantly sniffing around. Had a damn environmental emergency on my hands! I guess in a way I am okay in some ways with those fluorescent bulbs. But imagine hundreds of millions of those bulbs being dumped in landfills every year. Is that good for the environment?

*shrug*
 
In fact, I bought a hybrid and got a tax credit.

You know, i've heard there is an idea being circulated with law makers, tax/revenue counters, and the like.

Those hybrids use less fuel. They may be traveling the roads just as much as any run of the mill SUV, but given they use less fuel, and fuel is taxed at the pump, and some of the revenue from those taxes maintains infrastructure such as roads, hybrid drivers are not paying their fair share. So, the solution? An added tax to hybrid drivers. That added tax might well negate any savings in fuel costs.

I don't know why I find that funny, maybe it's the smugness of some of those hybrid driver's wokeness. :D

But when you really think about it, it does make sense. Hybrid owners should pay a separate tax for driving a vehicle that uses less fuel, and in turn pays less tax. Agreed?
 
As an aside: It's been cold as a mofo here. Record cold, a shitload of snow fell, also. Man, what a mess. Had to leave faucets dripping to prevent pipe freeze.

Well if that isn't proof that there's no change in the general climate of the planet I don't know what is. I'm convinced.
 
Back
Top