Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jackmormon

But it was really cold last winter....

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, renoskier said:

I understand what you're saying for now but are you so close minded that under no circumstances would you consider the possibility of anthropogenic climate change? Why?

What would be the downside of at least being open to the possibility?

I put that same question to all the "climate change deniers" who post here. They seem so absolute in their beliefs.

What would be the downside of actually considering that maybe we are having an effect?

The democrats are on team climate change.  That's the real problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Chile_Ute said:

Number one I don't see NorCal being close minded in his post.  

Two, humans contribute without question...but there is no compelling evidence that if we went 100% clean energy source that we would see a reversal.

With that said,I am down with clean energy sources (nuclear included), clean air and water.  It is the progression we should follow, but not because of fearmongering or guilt.

No, I understood what he was saying but he seems very closed to the idea that someday there might be "compelling evidence ".

Then, we can have the conversation about what, if anything, can we or should we do about it.

 

And why the phuck is this topic so partisan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, renoskier said:

No, I understood what he was saying but he seems very closed to the idea that someday there might be "compelling evidence ".

Then, we can have the conversation about what, if anything, can we or should we do about it.

 

And why the phuck is this topic so partisan?

There isn't compelling evidence of human caused climate change.  In fact there is nothing other than some laboratory experiments that have proven they don't totally apply to the real world.

What there is evidence of is a 12000 year period of sea rise and global warming where the vast majority of that time humans were nothing more than scavengers.  Human recorded weather history is so small as to be insignificant.   What anecdotal evidence we can get from tree rings and soil deposits are only general in nature and include every level of temperature we currently are experiencing.

Now I am not against developing less wasteful energy options.  I think we need to go nuclear across the board.  

To claim we need to destroy our economy for an idea that we don't understand and probably can't fix is just stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, renoskier said:

I understand what you're saying for now but are you so close minded that under no circumstances would you consider the possibility of anthropogenic climate change? Why?

What would be the downside of at least being open to the possibility?

I put that same question to all the "climate change deniers" who post here. They seem so absolute in their beliefs.

What would be the downside of actually considering that maybe we are having an effect?

No more close minded than those who accept is as definitive fact no matter what.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, renoskier said:

No, I understood what he was saying but he seems very closed to the idea that someday there might be "compelling evidence ".

Then, we can have the conversation about what, if anything, can we or should we do about it.

 

And why the phuck is this topic so partisan?

My argument isn't our involvement in the process....rather I'm not convinced we can reverse it by our actions.  It is a multi-factorial process.  I'd rather the conversation be how we lessen it.  It's like curing cancer...everyone wants that but it is too generic.  

Nothing to really say here.....except GO MWC!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

To claim we need to destroy our economy for an idea that we don't understand and probably can't fix is just stupid.

LMAO. LMAO. LMAO!!

 

Wow. So Who claimed that? Gawd damn\!

getting senile in your old age Otter? LMAO -- AGAIN!!

 

 

 

 

\

cerified_Subarus.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chile_Ute said:

Number one I don't see NorCal being close minded in his post.  

Two, humans contribute without question...but there is no compelling evidence that if we went 100% clean energy source that we would see a reversal.

With that said,I am down with clean energy sources (nuclear included), clean air and water.  It is the progression we should follow, but not because of fearmongering or guilt.

It's the typical liberal rebuttal.  You don't agree with me so you are close minded.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NorCalCoug said:

It's the typical liberal rebuttal.  You don't agree with me so you are close minded.

Honestly, it's the typical rebuttal of conservative OR liberal when there is discord.

Nothing to really say here.....except GO MWC!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Boise fan said:

I'd say no, because of the handful of known supervolcanoes, three are in North America.  Yellowstone, Long Valley (California), and Valles Caldera in New Mexico. 

So just a regular old volcano will do.

Eh, we won't miss Wyoming much, though I'd have to start reading books again if I don't have @happycamper's novel-length posts to keep me occupied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Chile_Ute said:

My argument isn't our involvement in the process....rather I'm not convinced we can reverse it by our actions.  It is a multi-factorial process.  I'd rather the conversation be how we lessen it.  It's like curing cancer...everyone wants that but it is too generic.  

Agree. When faced with an ongoing problem, the first step is always to try and stop the losses.  Then see if the damage can be mitigated/reversed/fixed.  To have a bleeding appendage and do nothing, or worse, aid in the loss of fluids simply because of economics and/or not understanding how it occurred is just dumb imo.

 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NVGiant said:

Eh, we won't miss Wyoming much, though I'd have to start reading books again if I don't have @happycamper's novel-length posts to keep me occupied.

Hopefully he'd get enough warning to flee to a safe haven.  Sad part is the printed word is a dying art form.  Everything is electronic.  Wipe that out and there'd be a lot of people mulling about aimlessly shaking their phones and wondering what they would do with their lives now. :D

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

For all the conned deniers. 

Global Warming For Dummies

 

Here is the problem with your little propaganda link.

The greenhouse gas model has proven it isn't the only issue or maybe even the main issue.  There are other unknown factors.

Second your link only lists negative factors for climate change.  It specifically excludes positive factors like the very large area's of the northern hemisphere that will have much more food production capability if the earth warms.

Third it makes a big deal of quite normal occurrences like sea rise which has been significant every century and current sea rise is insignificant compared to historical sea rise.

Fourth no one can say you do this, this and this and we will reverse the warming.  So destroying your economy seems foolish.

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

It's the typical liberal rebuttal.  You don't agree with me so you are close minded.

You did literally say "no one will ever convince me that the scientific community can definitively prove that either". That is textbook closed minded.

You didn't say "I have doubts that the scientific community will be able to definitively prove it in my lifetime" and you didn't say "I'd require far more conclusive proof from the scientific community to believe it". You said, effectively, that no matter the evidence you're not going to be convinced. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bluerules009 said:

Here is the problem with your little propaganda link.

The greenhouse gas model has proven it isn't the only issue or maybe even the main issue.  There are other unknown factors.

Second your link only lists negative factors for climate change.  It specifically excludes positive factors like the very large area's of the northern hemisphere that will have much more food production capability if the worth warms.

Third it makes a big deal of quite normal occurrences like sea rise which has been significant every century and current sea rise is insignificant compared to historical sea rise.

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

"Food production capability" is immaterial.  The science is straightforward.  Trapped carbon is being released in greater volumes than mother nature can retrap it.  I'm not advocating a cessation to logging or anything - replanting trees after cutting them down shouldn't be an issue.  But clear cutting for farming, ranching or whatever takes much of the greatest ways carbon is taken out of the atmosphere.  Burning it as much of clear cutting does releases the carbon the tree held.  All the dinosaur fuel in the earth includes trapped carbon.  Burning it releases it back into the atmosphere.

If nothing takes the carbon back out of the atmosphere the volumes rise.  CO2 lasts a long time in the atmosphere and is a proven greenhouse gas.  CO2 levels need to stop climbing and preferably begin shrinking to even think about reversing the greenhouse effect.  But the first step to addressing the problem is to reduce the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere.  That's decidedly within the ability of humans to control. 

When confronted with a problem, the logical first step is to stem or stop the issue that contributes to it.  Everything else can be debated and decided afterwards.

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

"Food production capability" is immaterial.  The science is straightforward.  Trapped carbon is being released in greater volumes than mother nature can retrap it.  I'm not advocating a cessation to logging or anything - replanting trees after cutting them down shouldn't be an issue.  But clear cutting for farming, ranching or whatever takes much of the greatest ways carbon is taken out of the atmosphere.  Burning it as much of clear cutting does releases the carbon the tree held.  All the dinosaur fuel in the earth includes trapped carbon.  Burning it releases it back into the atmosphere.

If nothing takes the carbon back out of the atmosphere the volumes rise.  CO2 lasts a long time in the atmosphere and is a proven greenhouse gas.  CO2 levels need to stop climbing and preferably begin shrinking to even think about reversing the greenhouse effect.  But the first step to addressing the problem is to reduce the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere.  That's decidedly within the ability of humans to control. 

When confronted with a problem, the logical first step is to stem or stop the issue that contributes to it.  Everything else can be debated and decided afterwards.

See this is the problem, there has been more carbon in the atmosphere several times.  The green house gas models have proven they are not the whole story.

We don't know what the issues are.  What to stop, or if stopping it will change anything.

This is like me telling you to cut off your dick and your wife won't get pregnant.  When we don't know if Joefromwyoming is sneaking in the back door or not.  With climate change we have proven something is sneaking in the back door because we can't predicft it.

Plus again liars like you won't even acknowledge there are good things about global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, happycamper said:

You did literally say "no one will ever convince me that the scientific community can definitively prove that either". That is textbook closed minded.

You didn't say "I have doubts that the scientific community will be able to definitively prove it in my lifetime" and you didn't say "I'd require far more conclusive proof from the scientific community to believe it". You said, effectively, that no matter the evidence you're not going to be convinced. 

Not interested in arguing semantics and spin.  Science can't definitively prove the claims that are made that man is driving global warming.  PERIOD.  That is all I'm saying.  If you believe that to be false then so be it.  I could care less.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...