Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Five questions I would like to ask the leaders of the climate change agenda. Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    1. Family A is environmentally conscious and they recycle, compost, eat organic, drive hybrids, use smart energy and etc. Family B does none of that and takes no active interest in their environment. Family A has three or more children and raises them with their values. Family B has two or less children and raises them with their values. Which family is more detrimental to the environment?

    2. If you truly believe that the livability of our planet and possibly the very existence of our species is at risk in the conceivable future, then why are you not willing to even talk about population control? I would think that risking your political future on an obviously unpopular subject would pale in comparison to the survival of our species.

    3. Why is it that every proposed measure to reduce carbon emissions I have ever heard of or read about seems to ultimately re-distribute wealth from the rich to the poor?

    4. Why is it that every major political party which yields a strong voice in support of the climate change movement also happens to be of a more progressive opinion in regards to wealth redistribution?

    5. Why should I not doubt your sincerity and motives on this issue when considering your answers to the first four questions?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You do, however, understand that this is not about assumptions and speculations, but about cold hard facts, right? Climate change is happening.


    Oh, and I'm SO sorry some redistribution of wealth may be going on (btw, it isn't really). So there wasn't enough money on your bank account for a Veyron this year, was there?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    You do, however, understand that this is not about assumptions and speculations, but about cold hard facts, right? Climate change is happening.
    I concede it is pretty obvious that climate change is happening. However it is very much in doubt as to how significantly man's presence is contributing to it and to what degree. It is also debatable as to if this change is a definitively detrimental one. However quoting multiple politicized sources for research and data supporting their claims allow them to not answer questions like the ones I just asked.

    It is interesting that you did not try to answer them either.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    I concede that it is pretty obvious that climate change is happening. However it is very much in doubt as to how significantly man's presence is contributing to it and to what degree. It is also debatable as to if this change is a definitively detrimental one. However quoting multiple politicized sources for research and data supporting their claims allow them to not answer questions like the ones I just asked.

    It is interesting that you did not try to answer them either.
    First of all, it is not 'very much in doubt'.

    Secondly, the point of your questions seems to consist of whining about the redistribution of wealth, something that goes on a lot here on TSR. Well sorry, I'm not against that. Besides: I don't really see the connection you're trying to make. You see it, it seems, I don't.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    First of all, it is not 'very much in doubt'.

    Secondly, the point of your questions seems to consist of whining about the redistribution of wealth, something that goes on a lot here on TSR. Well sorry, I'm not against that. Besides: I don't really see the connection you're trying to make. You see it, it seems, I don't.
    The point of my questions is to challenge climate change supporters to answer them without contradicting themselves. The point of both of your responses is to reject my premise without actually answering those questions. I think I probably wont bother to respond to you again. Regards,
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, so you won't respond to my posts anymore. Well, considering that you don't seem to detect the problem with this sentence of yours:

    (Original post by ckingalt)
    The point of both of your responses is to reject my premise without actually answering those questions.
    ... I don't think that will be such a loss.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Oh, so you won't respond to my posts anymore. Well, considering that you don't seem to detect the problem with this sentence of yours:



    ... I don't think that will be such a loss.
    I think you were completely out-classed in regards to that exchange. I'm suspect you lack enough sophistication to even realize it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by falseprofit)
    I think you were completely out-classed in regards to that exchange. I'm suspect you lack enough sophistication to even realize it.
    Meaning you don't really understand what the problem with that last sentence is, either.

    So much for being out-classed... try harder.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Meaning you don't really understand what the problem with that last sentence is, either.

    So much for being out-classed... try harder.
    No, meaning getting pedantic over grammar does nothing for your position other that suggest that you are outclassed in regards to the actual content. You try harder.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by falseprofit)
    No, meaning getting pedantic over grammar does nothing for your position other that suggest that you are outclassed in regards to the actual content. You try harder.
    Oh my god. You think this is about grammar.... *facepalm*

    Read the sentence again, and think about it logically.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    1. Family A is environmentally conscious and they recycle, compost, eat organic, drive hybrids, use smart energy and etc. Family B does none of that and takes no active interest in their environment. Family A has three or more children and raises them with their values. Family B has two or less children and raises them with their values. Which family is more detrimental to the environment?
    Don't know. What's the answer?

    (Original post by ckingalt)
    2. If you truly believe that the livability of our planet and possibly the very existence of our species is at risk in the conceivable future, then why are you not willing to even talk about population control? I would think that risking your political future on an obviously unpopular subject would pale in comparison to the survival of our species.
    Because it is not going to happen.

    You might as well start talking about other inane political ideas like colonising other planets to reduce the pressure on earth.

    What has been shown to work is to give women control of their own bodies.

    (Original post by ckingalt)
    3. Why is it that every proposed measure to reduce carbon emissions I have ever heard of or read about seems to ultimately re-distribute wealth from the rich to the poor? .
    I don't see how something like building more Nuclear power stations redistributes the wealth.

    Also, the rich have a larger carbon footprint in general. It would make sense to tax them more.

    (Original post by ckingalt)
    4. Why is it that every major political party which yields a strong voice in support of the climate change movement also happens to be of a more progressive opinion in regards to wealth redistribution?
    I don't know. I don't vote for progressive parties.

    (Original post by ckingalt)
    5. Why should I not doubt your sincerity and motives on this issue when considering your answers to the first four questions?
    I don't care whether you do. I am only concerned with the accuracy of the answer.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    First of all, it is not 'very much in doubt'.

    Secondly, the point of your questions seems to consist of whining about the redistribution of wealth, something that goes on a lot here on TSR. Well sorry, I'm not against that. Besides: I don't really see the connection you're trying to make. You see it, it seems, I don't.
    He is just trying to say that progressive parties are using Climate Change to redistribute wealth by increasing taxes on corporations and the rich and etc.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    I concede it is pretty obvious that climate change is happening. However it is very much in doubt as to how significantly man's presence is contributing to it and to what degree.r.
    Ok. What else is causing it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Ok. What else is causing it?
    Cycles Within Cycles

    Many scientists have come to believe that there are climate cycles inside climate cycles, some long and some unbelievably short. The climate patterns the scientists have analyzed seem to generally follow those cycles.

    Beginning in 1912, engineer Milutin Milankovitch conducted a 30-year long study which resulted in what is now known as Milankovitch's Orbital Theory. His calculations indicated that there were at least two main factors affecting the growth and retreat of the polar ice caps. One was based on the fact that the earth's orbit around the sun varies from nearly circular to oval in shape. When earth's orbit is more circular, weather patterns become less violent and more predictable. As the planet moves into its oval-shaped orbit cycle, weather extremes become more profound. This change from circular to elliptical orbit patterns takes place about every 95,800 years.

    Another factor influencing global climate is the earth's tilt. The planet's north-south axis actually is somewhat tilted in relation to the sun. Regions more exposed to the sun are warmer, those tilted away are cooler. This change in the earth's tilt is also predictable, ranging from 21.39 to 24.36 degrees and back every 41,000 years. As the angle increases, earth experiences hotter summers and colder winters. Currently the tilt is decreasing by about half a second of a degree per year, changing the latitudes of the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn and moving the tropical boundaries to the south.

    The earth also wobbles on its axis of rotation in a process known as the precession of the equinoxes. This 21,700-year cycle relates to the point at which the northern hemisphere is directed towards the sun. When the planet is relatively close to the sun, winters are short and warm. But when earth is farther away from the sun, winters become longer and colder.

    There is yet another oscillation which occurs about every 1,470 years and happened at least 25 times during the last ice age. These are known as the Dansgaard-Oeschger (D/O) oscillations and are characterized by rapid warming episodes followed by a longer period of slow cooling. They may be connected to changes in the North Atlantic and may be the result of melting ice sheets which release great quantities of fresh water into the ocean.

    The Sun

    The sun is another factor which can, and has, affected temperatures on Earth. It appears to be hotter at times, then becomes cooler for a time before it warms up again. The sun's heat output has been increasing for about the last 130 years. The mechanism behind this heating and cooling cycle is not yet well understood, but ongoing studies of both the phenomenon and its effects on the earth may soon shed more light on the sun's effect on climate change.

    Volcanoes

    Some volcanoes have had profound, though generally short term, effects on global weather. When Mount Tambora erupted in 1815 in Southeast Asia, ash clouds dimmed the sun over much of the world and caused the "Year Without a Summer" in 1816. The famous explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 was even smaller than the Mount Tambora event, but still caused short-term changes in the world's weather patterns.

    The greatest volcanic event of the last 23 million years was the gigantic eruption of Mount Toba on the island of Sumatra about 73,500 years ago. This super-eruption is said by some to have nearly wiped out humanity. Massive amounts of sulphur were thrown into the air, dimming the sun and dropping temperatures to some of the lowest recorded during the last ice age. The effects of this massive eruption are believed to have lasted as long as 2,000 years. Some experts now believe that the great supervolcano underlying North America's Yellowstone National Park poses as great a threat to the world as the spectacular Mount Toba eruption did nearly 75,000 years ago.

    Conclusion

    Earth is currently enjoying a warm period between ice ages. The last great cold spell, when temperatures ranged from about 10 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit (6 to 7 degrees Celsius) cooler than today, began to end about 18,000 years ago. But the warming trend was not uniform and tended to fluctuate, sometimes violently, over about 10,000 years. One recent example of this was the so-called Little Ice Age of the 15th through the 18th centuries, which followed a period of unusually wet and warm weather known as the Medieval Warm Period.


    Many researchers believe that the combined effects of the cyclic orbital changes, along with Earth's own axial tilt and wobble, cause the planet to swing back and forth from glacial to interglacial roughly every 100,000 years. It may be that mankind's effect on the planet could forestall or mitigate the effects of the next ice age, but it is unlikely to stop it.

    How soon might we expect the beginning of the next ice age? Usually the interglacial periods only last about 10,000 years, and Earth has enjoyed relatively mild temperatures for about that long. If the cyclic history of climate change is any indication, Earth may soon begin its slow and violent descent into a new cold spell, possibly over the next several hundred years.

    Selected References:

    Earth Under Fire: How Global Warming is Changing the World, 2007, Gary Braasch, University of California Press, Berkeley, California

    Discovery! Unearthing the New Treasures of Archaeology, Brian M. Fagan, ed., 2007, Thames & Hudson Ltd., London

    Europe Between the Oceans, 9000 BC to AD 1000, 2008, Barry Cunliffe, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

    Ice, Mud and Blood, 2008, Chris Turney, Macmillan, 175 Fifth Ave., New York, N. Y. 10010
    I'm not suggesting that the above theories are necessarily correct either. I'm saying that the weather/temperature cycles of an entire planet's eco system is complex enough, with infinite variables, that anyone who claims to be certain as to the profound cause of anything is being disingenuous.

    They tried telling us that we were harming our environment, and that we need to do better. They were/are right but the message just didn't have the desired affect. The message of "Global Warming" soon to be renamed "Climate Change" was much more successful. I believe the Climate change message began with sincere intentions but was hijacked by those with ulterior motives because they discovered it to be a useful tool rather than worthy cause. When I hear that "our costal cities will be underwater from the likes of Al Gore shortly before he buys a costal villa in one of those cities, I develop a healthy skepticism for the whole movement.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    The message of "Global Warming" soon to be renamed "Climate Change" was much more successful.
    That's an outright lie, both terms have been in use for decades, although 'Climate Change' is nowadays preferred as it's a broader term.

    Read this, for example: http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articl...climate-change

    Doesn't it strike you as ironical, even, that the first scientific paper to mention global warming was actually called 'Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?' - so actually using BOTH terms at the same time...?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    That's an outright lie, both terms have been used for decades, although 'Climate Change' is nowadays preferred as it's a broader term.

    Read this, for example: http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articl...climate-change

    Doesn't it strike you as ironical, even, that the first scientific paper to mention global warming was actually called 'Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?' - so actually using BOTH terms at the same time...?
    I really could not care less what they call it. It is also quite annoying that you pick that one insignificant comment to offer a rebuttal to, and ignore all the rest of the more substantive points I have made. What's even more annoying is that I am even replying to you at all.

    I truly like to be challenged in debates by opposition who can offer a structured rebuttal to the full content of my position. There is nothing better that sparring with someone who can use logic and insight to counter what I consider solid arguments. Someone like that can either sharpen my wit or change my beliefs. I don't think you are such a person.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There are no solid arguments in there. You obviously still don't even get what the problem with the sentence "The point of both of your responses is to reject my premise without actually answering those questions." is... so what exactly should I rebut?


    EDIT: Actually, why do you keep using expressions like 'structured rebuttal', 'sharpen my wit', 'sparring with someone' when you fail at understanding the meaning of the simple word 'premise'? Are you trying to impress someone?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    1. Family A is environmentally conscious and they recycle, compost, eat organic, drive hybrids, use smart energy and etc. Family B does none of that and takes no active interest in their environment. Family A has three or more children and raises them with their values. Family B has two or less children and raises them with their values. Which family is more detrimental to the environment?
    Both could have done better... by having fewer children and/or by having a better lifestyle.

    2. If you truly believe that the livability of our planet and possibly the very existence of our species is at risk in the conceivable future, then why are you not willing to even talk about population control? I would think that risking your political future on an obviously unpopular subject would pale in comparison to the survival of our species.
    Population, and the pressure it puts on the environment, has been on the agenda for several decades.

    3. Why is it that every proposed measure to reduce carbon emissions I have ever heard of or read about seems to ultimately re-distribute wealth from the rich to the poor?
    It's because you haven't heard or read enough about the subject

    4. Why is it that every major political party which yields a strong voice in support of the climate change movement also happens to be of a more progressive opinion in regards to wealth redistribution?
    See answer to #3.

    5. Why should I not doubt your sincerity and motives on this issue when considering your answers to the first four questions?
    Because I included a smiley face in one of my answers?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    1. Family A is environmentally conscious and they recycle, compost, eat organic, drive hybrids, use smart energy and etc. Family B does none of that and takes no active interest in their environment. Family A has three or more children and raises them with their values. Family B has two or less children and raises them with their values. Which family is more detrimental to the environment?
    Thats a question that is difficult to answer, without knowing the statistics. But I would wager Familly B is more detrimental to the environment.

    (Original post by ckingalt)
    2. If you truly believe that the livability of our planet and possibly the very existence of our species is at risk in the conceivable future, then why are you not willing to even talk about population control? I would think that risking your political future on an obviously unpopular subject would pale in comparison to the survival of our species.
    Population control has been mentioned, but it is not a realistic solution, as it doesn't actually solve the problem. It is far more humane, and simple to change the way our society works.

    (Original post by ckingalt)
    3. Why is it that every proposed measure to reduce carbon emissions I have ever heard of or read about seems to ultimately re-distribute wealth from the rich to the poor?
    It doesn't. Many have complained how many companies are abusing the 'green' label to artificially raise the prices of their products.

    The other issue is that the main cause of carbon emissions are invariably going to be the rich, through their companies and organizations. Green and sustainable energy sources and measures also happen to be better for the average person, as placing the control of their energy supply into the hands of the consumer, works far better in the long run. What's more, many have abused the limited nature of fossil fuels to build up profits, so naturally a sustainable energy source will create problems for them.

    (Original post by ckingalt)
    4. Why is it that every major political party which yields a strong voice in support of the climate change movement also happens to be of a more progressive opinion in regards to wealth redistribution?
    Because political parties which are concerned with the health of the society, as opposed to the health of the capitalist class, and more likely to consider climate change a problem. A political party which actually considers issues with planning and intelligence will invariably come to the same conclusions about climate change, economy and social welfare.

    (Original post by ckingalt)
    5. Why should I not doubt your sincerity and motives on this issue when considering your answers to the first four questions?
    Frankly, you should be doubting my sincerity.

    (Original post by ckingalt)
    They tried telling us that we were harming our environment, and that we need to do better. They were/are right but the message just didn't have the desired affect. The message of "Global Warming" soon to be renamed "Climate Change" was much more successful. I believe the Climate change message began with sincere intentions but was hijacked by those with ulterior motives because they discovered it to be a useful tool rather than worthy cause. When I hear that "our costal cities will be underwater from the likes of Al Gore shortly before he buys a costal villa in one of those cities, I develop a healthy skepticism for the whole movement.
    I guess that comes to a matter of opinion. My personal view is that the lies (because we do know there were lies) were only brought to the fore because nobody actually cared about climate change (although many still don't). If you were to say "the climate will vastly change over the next series of decades, eventually leading to a possible conclusion that would make life on earth for human extremely difficult", nobody would lift a finger, and they dont.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I find it funny that liberals hark on about the environment "for the sake of the children", but don't bat an eyelid when it comes to the debts accrued from their left wing premises. Another example of hypocrisy.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.