ChatterBank0 min ago
Another Reason For Climate Change......
62 Answers
.......is something you may have noticed every day. It's a big yellow thing in the sky called the Sun. That's what drives the climate on this planet, nothing else. However, you mustn't ignore the self-centred, glory-seeking scientists who seem to be basing everything on Spinach type calculations. Otherwise, everything's fine thanks! :o)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you drive into Los Angeles from the surrounding hills, the damage that man is doing to the atmosphere is very apparent in the low yellow cloud of smog that hangs motionless over the city. However, our weather patterns are changing naturally, and in the hysterical quest to 'save the planet, that, I think is pretty much deliberately ignored. We can help but I think ultimately it is futile because I do not believe that man can combat nature. I am more concerned with the plastic waste that is polluting our oceans which is something we really could positively address if we put our minds to it.
Doubt all you like, although you don't work with me, and Answerbank isn't where I do my research, so in reality you're drawing conclusions from no data at all.
Also, while in the strictest sense the scientific consensus on Climate Change can never be settled, it's a distinction that's equally true for any other field. The only reason that climate science comes under such scrutiny is because, unlike most other fields, it demands a response. We can't just passively study the Climate. We live in it. There is therefore a cost to being right (or wrong) about the causes of the present Climate Change, one that simply doesn't exist in, say, particle physics (where, sure, you could argue that new particle collider experiments may be a waste of money or resources, but even then that's only money).
But anyway. That aside, the central message from the consensus of Climate Science boils down to this: human activity is damaging the planet, in measurable ways. Therefore, it's within our power to fix it -- or at least to mitigate it. The rest is detail.
Also, while in the strictest sense the scientific consensus on Climate Change can never be settled, it's a distinction that's equally true for any other field. The only reason that climate science comes under such scrutiny is because, unlike most other fields, it demands a response. We can't just passively study the Climate. We live in it. There is therefore a cost to being right (or wrong) about the causes of the present Climate Change, one that simply doesn't exist in, say, particle physics (where, sure, you could argue that new particle collider experiments may be a waste of money or resources, but even then that's only money).
But anyway. That aside, the central message from the consensus of Climate Science boils down to this: human activity is damaging the planet, in measurable ways. Therefore, it's within our power to fix it -- or at least to mitigate it. The rest is detail.
Naomi,
Plastic is made from fossil fuels. It is unnatural not organic, which is why it doesn’t bio degrade..
The smog from gas fumes, though a problem, isn’t the main problem. Fossil fuels burned in large quantities by industry is the main culprit.
It is fatalistic to say man cannot change and it is futile to even try. We already have changed for the better, the major world economies have ditched coal. Unfortunately the far east have gone the other way and are using more. But soon their coal production will become old and gradually they will use more cleaner renewable energy.
We have hit peak coal, and from now on the only way is down, which is a good sign.
Plastic is made from fossil fuels. It is unnatural not organic, which is why it doesn’t bio degrade..
The smog from gas fumes, though a problem, isn’t the main problem. Fossil fuels burned in large quantities by industry is the main culprit.
It is fatalistic to say man cannot change and it is futile to even try. We already have changed for the better, the major world economies have ditched coal. Unfortunately the far east have gone the other way and are using more. But soon their coal production will become old and gradually they will use more cleaner renewable energy.
We have hit peak coal, and from now on the only way is down, which is a good sign.
Gromit, I'm not sure why you're telling me something that most of us are aware of …. and I didn't say it's futile to even try. Doubtless if we try hard enough we may delay the inevitable but if nature is doing its own thing - and I think it is - unless it changes course ultimately the outcome is inevitable.... in my opinion.
Bob, not to the same extent.
Bob, not to the same extent.
Naomi, I'm always happy to listen to what others have to say. I just weigh that differently, it seems, from how you'd like.
It's not unreasonable, for example, to ask people who have, let's say, doubts about the consensus on Climate Change, to point specifically to what exactly within the consensus they have doubts about. If they can't be concrete, though -- or if their concrete doubts have already been addressed -- then what purpose is served by implying that such vague (or already refuted) concerns have the same weight?
It's all very well for example to say that "our weather patterns are changing naturally... that is pretty much deliberately ignored. We can help but I think ultimately it is futile because I do not believe that man can combat nature." But as a matter of fact climate scientists are already aware of the first part, while there are several concrete proposals out there that suggest that your disbelief that "man can combat nature" is also based on not a lot. In that sense, it's not clear what precisely it is you even *want* me to listen to.
It's not unreasonable, for example, to ask people who have, let's say, doubts about the consensus on Climate Change, to point specifically to what exactly within the consensus they have doubts about. If they can't be concrete, though -- or if their concrete doubts have already been addressed -- then what purpose is served by implying that such vague (or already refuted) concerns have the same weight?
It's all very well for example to say that "our weather patterns are changing naturally... that is pretty much deliberately ignored. We can help but I think ultimately it is futile because I do not believe that man can combat nature." But as a matter of fact climate scientists are already aware of the first part, while there are several concrete proposals out there that suggest that your disbelief that "man can combat nature" is also based on not a lot. In that sense, it's not clear what precisely it is you even *want* me to listen to.
Saying plastic is unnatural and not organic can not be true unless it is made from cosmic dust which is constantly falling on the planet,otherwise whatever material it is made from was always here when the planet was formed,also the scientist have no job when people realise that we can not stop climate change,it has always changed,but cleaning up our rivers and seas will help far more than frightening people,in my opinion.
fripfrip
Plastic does not occur naturally. It is chemically engineered from crude oil (or coal oil) by a process called cracking. Complex molecules are split or cracked to form two, or more different substances.
Fossil fuels are dangerous and left where they naturally occur, thousands of feet underground.
Plastic does not occur naturally. It is chemically engineered from crude oil (or coal oil) by a process called cracking. Complex molecules are split or cracked to form two, or more different substances.
Fossil fuels are dangerous and left where they naturally occur, thousands of feet underground.
Thanks for all the replies folks, including one from a world expert in his field. WOW!. But despite that, (and some sarcasm, for want of a better word) I'll still go with the science. And from what I've read, the science says that climate change is natural. Where are the links to these scientists, I hear you say. Well, it's pointless putting links on this website because they're always followed by yeah but no but yeah but no but......
Thanks again.
Thanks again.
The science says that climate change can be natural, but that it isn't right now. This isn't difficult. You aren't "going with the science", just some warped misinterpretation of it. Even the link you offered in a previous thread explicitly undermined it, so at this point it's calling into question your ability to read your own sources.
In that other thread, I pointed you to the IPCC review. I shan't bother relinking, because I'm sure you have no interest in reading it -- and while, to be fair, a 2400-page document is rather a lot for anybody, the real point is that the review covers literally hundreds, if not thousands, of references, from many thousands of scientists covering research in a field that has a history of well over a century. In this matter, they're the experts (not me, I hasten to add) -- and if you are going to "listen to the science", it's them you should be listening to.
In that other thread, I pointed you to the IPCC review. I shan't bother relinking, because I'm sure you have no interest in reading it -- and while, to be fair, a 2400-page document is rather a lot for anybody, the real point is that the review covers literally hundreds, if not thousands, of references, from many thousands of scientists covering research in a field that has a history of well over a century. In this matter, they're the experts (not me, I hasten to add) -- and if you are going to "listen to the science", it's them you should be listening to.
