by my math....this covid19 crap has kept 1,500 miles off my truck

[JAndreF321]

Dude, dude, dude. Now how is any ******* going to even begin to use this???

Spencer definitely makes points on his specific topics. He points out that modeling for usage of fossil fuels do not support alarmist concerns. He also discusses the lack of research in natural climate change. He completely fails to address any other direct or indirect contributors to climate change caused by man. Pure trash pollution, fertilizer pollution, run off and erosion from deforestation, over-fishing, industrial waste, etc. All of these things negatively impact the environment and contribute to climate change. Ask people from Florida if the increased revenue from sugarcane was worth the algae blooms destroying local ecosystems and revenue from eco tourism. Our climate is dependent on more than what Dr. Spencer describes in the atmosphere. Human's need for additional meat has caused an increase in methane production from livestock in surprising numbers. This has led to innovative ways of capturing and storing that methane for other uses. No you're not going to cause a hurricane from eating a burger, but that burger means less fresh water for humans and animals, fewer trees, less land, and more greenhouse gas.

When I said before that there are a multitude of studies proving man-made climate change exists, I wasn't joking. Check google scholar and you will find thousands and thousands of studies supporting this theory. Yes, it is a theory and correlation does not equal causation, but there is more than enough legitimate evidence. The difficulty is proving in any tangible idea of what the impact is, how severe it is, and what the result will be. In any case, the result is inherently negative. When someone says that they don't believe in man-made climate change that is akin to saying you don't believe the earth is round and orbits the sun (Yes, I know the earth isn't a perfect sphere). Perhaps some time in the future we will find that the earth does not in fact orbit the sun, but there is plenty of scientific evidence to support this theory now.

Again, it just isn't feasible to say that the climate isn't affected by humans. It is feasible to say that scientists cannot accurately measure Human impact on climate and have failed to provide meaningful studies to predict the effects we will have in the near future. The irony is that the people who say this also say that we should stop all research into man-made climate change. Many people have accurately criticized the CDC for being funded to conduct research which is not applicable to the organization's founding purpose. This money has essentially been throw away to produce a body of knowledge which has not been able to help with the current pandemic. This concern lingers with all federally funded programs. Who decides how the money is spent, and how much fraud, waste, and abuse can we accept? As always, it is the responsibility of level headed legislators to throw trash like the Green New Deal away and create valuable propositions to improve our country, including funding valuable research.

 

[911 Crazy]

you can jump up and down all you want that you could, or the other poster could, find ONE guy that says that NASA is wrong. Good for you! 97% of the climate science community disagrees with Roy Spencer. I hope he's right, but I wouldn't bet on it, after all, he's stated his political bias “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

but go right ahead and feel victorious! Ride it like a cowboy!

97%? Must have pulled that outta your lower extremes!

 

[911 Crazy]

Spencer definitely makes points on his specific topics. He points out that modeling for usage of fossil fuels do not support alarmist concerns. He also discusses the lack of research in natural climate change. He completely fails to address any other direct or indirect contributors to climate change caused by man. Pure trash pollution, fertilizer pollution, run off and erosion from deforestation, over-fishing, industrial waste, etc. All of these things negatively impact the environment and contribute to climate change. Ask people from Florida if the increased revenue from sugarcane was worth the algae blooms destroying local ecosystems and revenue from eco tourism. Our climate is dependent on more than what Dr. Spencer describes in the atmosphere. Human's need for additional meat has caused an increase in methane production from livestock in surprising numbers. This has led to innovative ways of capturing and storing that methane for other uses. No you're not going to cause a hurricane from eating a burger, but that burger means less fresh water for humans and animals, fewer trees, less land, and more greenhouse gas.

When I said before that there are a multitude of studies proving man-made climate change exists, I wasn't joking. Check google scholar and you will find thousands and thousands of studies supporting this theory. Yes, it is a theory and correlation does not equal causation, but there is more than enough legitimate evidence. The difficulty is proving in any tangible idea of what the impact is, how severe it is, and what the result will be. In any case, the result is inherently negative. When someone says that they don't believe in man-made climate change that is akin to saying you don't believe the earth is round and orbits the sun (Yes, I know the earth isn't a perfect sphere). Perhaps some time in the future we will find that the earth does not in fact orbit the sun, but there is plenty of scientific evidence to support this theory now.

Again, it just isn't feasible to say that the climate isn't affected by humans. It is feasible to say that scientists cannot accurately measure Human impact on climate and have failed to provide meaningful studies to predict the effects we will have in the near future. The irony is that the people who say this also say that we should stop all research into man-made climate change. Many people have accurately criticized the CDC for being funded to conduct research which is not applicable to the organization's founding purpose. This money has essentially been throw away to produce a body of knowledge which has not been able to help with the current pandemic. This concern lingers with all federally funded programs. Who decides how the money is spent, and how much fraud, waste, and abuse can we accept? As always, it is the responsibility of level headed legislators to throw trash like the Green New Deal away and create valuable propositions to improve our country, including funding valuable research.

I thought we talked about this nonsense before.

 

[Denvertaco07]

97%? Must have pulled that outta your lower extremes!

U R funny...

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*

-NASA

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I know you complained about reading the other guys' post, so you probably won't spend the 2 minutes to read NASA, but ok...keep riding it like a cowboy brother.

 

[JAndreF321]

I thought we talked about this nonsense before.

Sorry, was trying to avoid doing real work and convinced myself ranting on here was important haha...

My daily commute is 40ish miles round trip. Usually drive 200 miles on the weekend. Been working from home for 3 weeks...so saved around 1200 miles. I somehow didn't realize how much I drive until now.

 

[911 Crazy]

U R funny...

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*

-NASA

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I know you complained about reading the other guys' post, so you probably won't spend the 2 minutes to read NASA, but ok...keep riding it like a cowboy brother.

So glad the AMA is on board there chief! I never said that the climate wasn't happening.

 

[4rdFan]

Paging @Big Blue this thread has gone off the deep end.

 

[smurfslayer]

So, maybe we can, as humans,, do some things differently, that is, if we believe in science. like, IDK, investing in renewable energy. There are many things we can try to do, if we believe in the science.

pretty sure a previous poster already mentioned tesla, other electric vehicles, solar and wind energy, nuclear. It’s not like the 70’s, we’re doing a lot of this.

Do more frequent, and more damaging weather events cost us anything?

where is the evidence this is caused by - what are we talking about here climate change or global warming, that was never clarified. Do warmer winters from El Nino more than make up for more frequent and damaging weather events? are El Nino and la nina naturally occurring weather events or are they similarly caused by humans?

The cost of not doing anything because we believe DT and those like him, is that we have to find another planet to live on, I wonder how much that will cost? I'd guess magnitudes on top of magnitudes above anything that the "libtards" are gonna cost you by investing in renewable energy.

I realize a lot of previous posters leaned in a bit, but this just isn’t a cogent argument or disagreement. It’s over the top hyperbole that simply undercuts statements you made previously that maybe had some credibility to them. You could have stricken the political portions, and still made your point

And yes, many deny science before he is POTUS, but he is the leader of the folks who deny, so he is a good example of who some trust with their scientific "facts" other than actual science.

I think part of the disconnect that partisans suffer from is what is considered ’science’. Is it conclusory facts that were achieved via the scientific method OR is it peer reviewed assumptive predictions? Like, say ... meteorology? You see, part of the Nasa conclusions concern periods of time before recorded history and while I can fathom that it’s possible to know and understand certain things about the past, i have a hard time reaching the conclusion that temperature is one of them, particularly with the precision that they can say there were definitive differences in temperature. I can be convinced, but i have a hard time buying it.

While individual scientists do have bias, their work must be peer reviewed and the science must be sound to be published. The lack of funds is why my wife is working a desk instead of conducting research right now.

Climate-gate. Peer reviewed means very little when your echo chamber peer reviews your “work” by making sure it’s messaged to achieve the desired outcome. There’s scientific method and there’s the politically motivated studies with conclusions established and research developed to support the conclusion. The latter gets peer reviewed too.

Sciencey.

When I said before that there are a multitude of studies proving man-made climate change exists, I wasn't joking.

Of course. spend time behind a bus rolling coal and tell me honestly that’s good for human health. I was stuck behind some oil and diesel belching delivery truck in Italy with alleys so tight he had to retract his mirrors - and no way to pass. I ended up having to stop the fumes were so bad.

it just isn't feasible to say that the climate isn't affected by humans. It is feasible to say that scientists cannot accurately measure Human impact on climate and have failed to provide meaningful studies to predict the effects we will have in the near future. The irony is that the people who say this also say that we should stop all research into man-made climate change. Many people have accurately criticized the CDC for being funded to conduct research which is not applicable to the organization's founding purpose.

Right and the credibility of the scientific community suffered huge as more and more people began calling these studies into question with some success. Just like one bad cop poisons the rep for all boys in blue, a single unethical scientist undoes the credibility of the community; a community that makes its bones on dispassionate analysis and study.

 

[D11gnccer]

I was looking forward to driving mine this year too... 14 months of ownership with 3300 miles on it. I guess I might be looking at dropping to a 60,000 mile 8 year esp when it’s time.

 

[Big Blue]

Paging @Big Blue this thread has gone off the deep end.

Yes, but the world is taking a giant crap so I will let this run it's course for now.