Red Sun

[Gary Childress]

Here's an interesting article from Scientific American. It seems that many physicists have looked at the data presented by climate scientists and are pretty convinced that the climate is both changing and that it is at least significantly due to human activities. They have dropped the word "incontrovertible", however, they still seem to caution that action should be taken.

I'm curious why others might think global warming and climate change are hoaxes-especially supposedly educated people participating in a philosophy forum? Granted there is some wiggle room of uncertainty, perhaps. However, Isn't it best to err on the side of caution and try to take steps to mitigate as much as possible the consumption of fossil fuels and other prominent sources of greenhouse gasses?

[Walker]

If it were not for kunty American kristianity and greed we might well have been on top of the problem by now.

The problem is bush fire. The cause is poor land management. The location is Australia. Do try and stay on top of the topic.

The reason for poor land management is the political pressure from environmental activists who came of age and say, thou shalt not clear the bush. That, and laziness. Clearing bush is hot and dirty work.

[Walker]

Here's an interesting article from Scientific American. It seems that many physicists have looked at the data presented by climate scientists and are pretty convinced that the climate is both changing and that it is at least significantly due to human activities. They have dropped the word "incontrovertible", however, they still seem to caution that action should be taken.

I'm curious why others might think global warming and climate change are hoaxes-especially supposedly educated people participating in a philosophy forum? Granted there is some wiggle room of uncertainty, perhaps. However, Isn't it best to err on the side of caution and try to take steps to mitigate as much as possible the consumption of fossil fuels and other prominent sources of greenhouse gasses?

You will find the answers to your questions in the reasoning and in the informative, factual links that have been graciously and generously contributed. Until signs of comprehension appear, meh.

[Walker]

People wanting to do something about climate change is a political movement ...

That's ridiculous. People who want something done about global warming are people who want a habitable planet to live on.

It's a political movement in so far as people engage in political activity such as voting, organizing and advocating to political leaders. There's nothing wrong with that. That's how ordinary people affect politics in democratic countries.

The political movement is bloody totalitarian in nature.

Do Brits say bloody these days, and how strong a word is it?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If it were not for kunty American kristianity and greed we might well have been on top of the problem by now.

The problem is bush fire. The cause is poor land management. The location is Australia. Do try and stay on top of the topic.

The reason for poor land management is the political pressure from environmental activists who came of age and say, thou shalt not clear the bush. That, and laziness. Clearing bush is hot and dirty work.

You don't find it a tad suspicious that the denial movement is funded by the oil industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars?

[Gary Childress]

That's ridiculous. People who want something done about global warming are people who want a habitable planet to live on.

It's a political movement in so far as people engage in political activity such as voting, organizing and advocating to political leaders. There's nothing wrong with that. That's how ordinary people affect politics in democratic countries.

The political movement is bloody totalitarian in nature.

Do Brits say bloody these days, and how strong a word is it?

How is it "totalitarian" for people to advocate for sustainable energy any more than it is "totalitarian" to advocate for an end to abortion? Both cases seem to involve very passionate people demonstrating for what they view as justice. Both cases seem to involve life or death decisions for human beings, abortion abolitionists see the unborn as threatened by death, environmental activists see global warming as potentially dangerous for all of humanity. Yet I believe you support the abolition of abortion. How is it that one group of people advocating for something is "totalitarian" and another isn't?

During the Second World War, there was a national emergency. The government stepped in to tell manufacturers to produce more guns and less butter. Now we face what seems to be an emergency for all of humanity. Shouldn't the government step in and tell manufacturers to switch to sustainable and cleaner energy? Would it destroy manufacturers to do so?

As far as your posts concerning skepticism over global warming. How is it that the American Physical Society, made up of top physicists, doesn't seem to possess this knowledge which you do? Doesn't that strike you as odd or reason to re-evaluate your position? Is your position so dead sure that there is absolutely no doubt to it?

[Gary Childress]

The breathtaking fraud of climate alarmists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KED ... e=youtu.be

So I found this post of yours to be very interesting. Thank you for posting it.

The presenter goes over charts representing heat waves, wildfires, arctic sea ice levels, sea level. The graphs he presents generally seem to go back to the early industrial age in the US and no further. Granted perhaps climate scientists or maybe politicians (or whoever was involved) cherry picked those data. I don't know. But what about global temperature over a thousand years or the famous "hockey stick" graph. The presenter doesn't seem to have anything to say about that. Yet that seems to be the most dramatic evidence of global warming, especially an unnaturally large increase in warming over the past century. This warming is apparently happening at a rate that many natural habitats cannot keep up with. Historically temperatures are supposed to have taken longer to deviate than they are now so that plants and animals were able to genetically adapt through natural selection. Some say current trends are happening faster than species can adapt and mass extinctions may occur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperatu ... 1000_years

The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using different data and methods. More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[1] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[16]