What's new
By:

Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned

Eenie-Meenie said:
Research HFCS. It is not just sugar; it's a manufactured form of sugar and does have some bad side effects; some say it has contributed greatly to obesity. Ok, so the FDA says no evidence it's worse than regular sugar, but I don't trust the FDA, for one. If you do, fine. Harvard Medical Journal says the juries out because there are studies showing people metabolize HFCS differently. I distrust establishment sources because most are funded or supported by industries with investment in the issue that the sources are reporting about.
Click to expand...

Monsanto being one of these industries...
 
One Brow said:
So. since some glaciers are growing, this somehow voids that facts that overall glaciers are shrinking? How desperate (or paid off) do you have to be to believe this?
Click to expand...

I believe the conclusion Heathme thinks we should draw regarding the stalling of Greenland's Jakobshavn glacier is likely flawed.

The stalling of the Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland may actually be bad news, not good:

https://mashable.com/article/greenland-jakobshavn-glacier-ocean-climate.amp

And then there is the perhaps overlooked impact of melting mountain glaciers, not just on sea level rise, but on future fresh water resources:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mountain-glaciers-are-major-contributors-to-rising-seas/

"Not only will the glaciers continue to contribute to global sea-level rise—as long as they last—but local water supplies are likely to dwindle as they disappear. Summer melt from mountain glaciers is often an important source of fresh water for nearby communities.

“These mountain glaciers feed large populations,” said Alex Gardner, a glacier expert at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “Right now, they’re probably seeing an increase in discharge during the warm, dry months when these glaciers are contributing a significant fraction of the stream flow. But as we get out 50 or 100 years, that contribution is going to start to slow down.

“I think we’ll have a much more consequential impact in terms of water resources as that water reservoir is no longer available,” he added."
 
One Brow said:
So. since some glaciers are growing, this somehow voids that facts that overall glaciers are shrinking? How desperate (or paid off) do you have to be to believe this?
Click to expand...
Hey it snowed in my backyard the other day so obviously an ice age is coming

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
One Brow said:
So. since some glaciers are growing, this somehow voids that facts that overall glaciers are shrinking? How desperate (or paid off) do you have to be to believe this?
Click to expand...

It just shows that the earth goes through cycles and always has. Some parts are warmer at certain times and some parts are colder. The earth has had more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past then it has now. Cycles happen. The earth will not be destroyed or on its way to destruction in 12 years like the IPCC believes. Yes, we should take care of the planet and keep it as clean as possible. No, climate change will not destroy the planet in 12 years. This whole debate just seems silly. Spending 93 trillion to "combat" climate change is ridiculous. All it does is give the government more power. A completely inefficient system given more money will not fix anything.
 
Heathme said:
It just shows that the earth goes through cycles and always has. Some parts are warmer at certain times and some parts are colder.
Click to expand...

No, it shows there is a difference between an average change over multiple locations and an individual change in a specific location.

Heathme said:
The earth has had more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past then it has now. Cycles happen.
Click to expand...

The earth has never added so much CO2 so quickly, and temperatures have never risen so quickly. It's not just a normal cycle, and we don't know where it will top out.

Heathme said:
The earth will not be destroyed or on its way to destruction in 12 years like the IPCC believes. Yes, we should take care of the planet and keep it as clean as possible. No, climate change will not destroy the planet in 12 years. This whole debate just seems silly. Spending 93 trillion to "combat" climate change is ridiculous. All it does is give the government more power. A completely inefficient system given more money will not fix anything.
Click to expand...

I agree the planet is not going anywhere. What's going to change is our ability to maintain and improve upon our civilization with an increase in population and a decrease in arable land.

Mind you, I'm in the Midwest. We'll keep getting plenty of rain, lots of warmth, and no sea level rise will affect us. Climate change is not a threat to me. Those of you that depend on mountain run-off need to think about it more carefully.
 
Heathme said:
The earth will not be destroyed or on its way to destruction in 12 years like the IPCC believes. Yes, we should take care of the planet and keep it as clean as possible. No, climate change will not destroy the planet in 12 years.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you feel the need to misrepresent what continued global warming/climate change will entail. The destruction of the Earth? Nobody is making any such claim. Why are you so ridiculously overstating in this fashion? The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. There have been periods in the Earth's history that have resulted in mass extinction events. The mass extinction at the end of the Permian period resulted in the loss of some 95% of marine life, and 70% of terrestrial life. But the Earth still continued to revolve on its axis, circle the sun, and life rebounded. Debated are the causes behind this Great Dying, some 250 million years ago:

http://www.eartharchives.org/articl...ction-when-all-life-on-earth-almost-vanished/

Only in very recent years have we begun to locate and identify asteroidal fragments that would be big enough to have a devastating impact on life on Earth. The Tunguska event of 1908, in Siberia, which may have represented the impact of a small comet, and the meteor impact of 2013 in Chelyabinsk, Russia, the largest impactor in our lifetime, were minuscule in comparison to the hypothetical impactor that ended the Cretaceous Period some 65 million years ago, and led to the rise of mammals in its dinosaur-killing aftermath. Yet, relatively small events like Tunguska and Chelyabinsk do help raise our awareness of the potential danger of much larger impacts, hence the Near Earth Objects program(NEO):

https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/about/target_earth.html

Regardless of how many times life has experienced mass extinctions, regardless of the cause or causes of such events, the Earth itself survived quite intact, and life itself survived, and thrived. Yet you feel free to completely mistate the consequences projected in the wake of the extent of change envisioned by anthropogenic global warming. You believe a complete mischaracterization somehow advances your argument? The destruction of the Earth itself?

It will be a very, very, very long time before our Sun goes nova. That is the one event that would extinguish the Earth itself.
 
Heathme said:
Yep. That is why I do not believe the changes in weather have anything to do with climate change. I think we're on the same page on this one.
Click to expand...
No. It's not just changes in weather. It's much more than that.
It's scientists doing very detailed time consuming studies over time coming with data that shows likely outcomes.
The scientists are smarter than you and I.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Heathme said:
You can use these exact same words and simply substitute cnn, msnbc, ny times, Washington post, huffington post, etc. and it would actually be more accurate. The Russian collision story proves that these "journalists" are not looking for truth and are trying to "create a false reality".
Click to expand...

Except, there really was collusion, and it is documented in the Mueller report. It did not rise to the level of criminality, but the members of the Trump campaign did cooperate with Russia, as testified to by members of the campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top