The term "settled science" is at odds with the very essence of what science really is. Skepticism and debate are not contrary to science. In fact they are the central essence of science.
Who says he isn't buying in though? I drive a car that isn't electric. I'm sure my carbon footprint isn't helping. That doesn't mean I don't believe Global Warming doesn't exist or that we aren't making it worse. What am I doing to help? Well here's one thing -- consuming less beef. Seems as though thats a large contributor in methane which is harmful. I could be doing a lot more, but one person isn't going to help solve this. It starts at the top with cutting off some of the biggest contributors and putting money into making it easier for consumers to purchase greener substitutes. The facts that we contribute towards global warming as human beings. There's plenty of evidence behind it. The biggest argument against global warming has been that we are going through a cycle of warmth, but if all these chemicals that are hurting the atmosphere is actually true, how can anyone choose to believe this is a cycle? And it seems the more we've contributed the worse it's gotten. It depends on who you ask whether or not it is too late or not. But most will agree that it IS an issue. The problem seems to be with people that won't acknowledge the issue at all and call it a "hoax" (Trump definitely isn't the only one).
me. Leo has a private jet and has rented out the largest yacht in the world numerous times for parties. That's not someone who thinks hes destroying the planet. awesome. glad im here for your lecture.
On some level, sure. The question really is if human activity truly is the main driver behind it and if it can be reversed....and if that would even be a good thing. Well, some might point to the "climate changes" that have happened for all of history, including before humans were a thing. The globe has entered and exited ice ages many times in the past, and it wasn't because Raptors drove gas guzzling cars. There flat out is a cycle to weather....there are many of them in fact. In some way do humans contribute? Sure, but is it spitting in the ocean or is it the driving force? There's absolutely no consensus on that.....and those who suggest otherwise are selling something.
The military is acting like it's real though. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-military-climate-change-20161103-story.html
Nothing is settled and everything is open for debate - for example - I am currently skeptical that the earth goes around the sun. And I don't think there are such things as quarks - how do we really know they exist? Has anyone actually seen them? Or a molecule for that matter. I love that you know more about definiting science that the people who dedicate their lives to science. You're like Trump knowing more about war than the generals.
You should try sarcasm sometime, you might get high. On another note, how come no matter when I come to this site you are always actively posting? Are you the clutchfans troll in the basement?
Climate change reminds me of the evolution debate.... the science isn't settled but there isn't a better explanation that has emerged yet.
Well Koch actually invested heavily in Canadian oil sands while Exxon invested heavily in natural gas. However, I do agree that natural gas is an important step in cutting down not only CO2 emission, but SOX, NOX, and particulate matter.
We will get to sustainable energy eventually because solar and wind aren't resources, they are technologies, which will continue to increase in efficiency. Too little, too late though. We lost the climate change battle years ago. That is perhaps the great loss of a Gore non-presidency. Well, that and blood and treasure and reason. Climate change is here and it will be increasingly unrelenting. Even with Trump probably about to give us crap for four years, the climate is the one thing I am a stone cold pessimist on.
It's a lost cause both politically and publicly. It's become a matter of culture rather than tangible observation. People on the coasts will feel it earlier than inland, though the thought of droughts roasting up the Midwest isn't something to dwell on. Maybe Technology can help give us rain where we need it? A little dance here and there for inches won't hurt.
https://www.ft.com/content/35803636-a82a-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6 I wonder why the rest of the world is concerned about this but not the GOP?
your link isn't readable, but to answer your question: the solutions for global warming are to give tons of money and control over to governments, so its obvious why they would support it. all governments seek this.
Sir Isaac Netwon helped Europe establish the foundations of science by NOT being skeptical. So, we don't need scientists to continue looking for the temperature at which water turns to ice. Science can stop being skeptical about whether copper is a good conductor or not. Are you skeptical about gravity? Science tells us that when all the blood drains from your body, you're gonna die. Skeptical? The Earth revolves around the sun. T/F Science tells us oil and coal can be converted to usable energy. Skeptical? Don't be a goof: science succeeds because it takes some things for granted as established facts. It's the only way scientists can avoid repeating the same experiments for thousands of years. "Settled science" is very real (water turns to ice, gravity behaves in a certain way, light has certain properties, etc.)
Well that's odd, well basically pretty much everyone but the GOP party thinks this is a hoax. This is only an issue in this country. Apparently Conservatives think scientist are corrupt but not their politicians...talk about placing your trust in the wrong hands.
see. you are making the same blunder we've already talked about. you are the head of the sierra club: you think incorrectly stating that all scientists believe in global warming is compelling. its not even if it was true. If you want people to give up trillions of dollars and tons of liberties to enact policies that will be devastating to the poor, then you need to argue the science. which you don't. You need to answer questions like mr cruz is posing here ('why does the satellite data show no warming for the past 18 years?'). There may be a very reasonable answer but you aren't giving it. when American Meteorological Society was polled, Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.” What you are doing is not healthy for debate at all.
Lol that's been answered before. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3e94...eck-most-gop-candidates-flunk-climate-science No actually people like you are part of the problem. You've injected yourself into the conversation when it really should only be between the scientist. I don't tell my doctor how to diagnose me, I just trust that he's looking out for me and not some secret agenda. Also, you literally just gave me a quote that most scientist believe it is real and that it is due to man...which then I guess you just have decided to ignore. The science is hardly ever settled to the point that EVERYONE agrees. Well, everyone agrees with with gravity because we can test that. You know what else we know? For sure. That the Earth is warming and most scientist think it is due to man. The problem I have with positions like yours is it is basically. "Well, we don't know 100%, lets burn up the planet while we wait and find out." This is like if your doctor tells you if you keep your diet the same that you will probably get diabetes....but you then decide "So what, I enjoy what I eat. I'll just risk it." Any ways since you seem to trust the American Meteorological Society, here is what they had to say about it a few days ago... http://phys.org/news/2016-11-hot-year.html What is scarier is we know how planets can change. How? Well look ahead and behind you to Venus and Mars...but hey, maybe they are all hoaxes too. I remember back when a time when Conservatives said that climate change wasn't real at all...and now they've changed their tune too "Well it's real but not man made." I wonder what it will be 5 years from now. "Well it's man-made but it's not because of fossil fuels."
