Science Denial

[juvenissun]

Sure, let's wait until things get really bad before doing something about it rather than starting when things are only sort of bad.

Don't worry. I believe most people are sensitive enough on the situation. When a forest fire is on, and if you are alerted, then I am sure you are able to get out of the fire in time.

I heard an island nation in the Pacific is now encountering more frequent flood (sea water?). Don't you think people on the island would know when is the best time to pack up and leave? I would say that they at least have a few hundreds of years to consider that. How many generations would that be? That is how long the time period we should worry about the climate change. Not on how to stop the change, but on how to deal with the change.

 

[lesliedellow]

I heard an island nation in the Pacific is now encountering more frequent flood (sea water?). Don't you think people on the island would know when is the best time to pack up and leave?

Why the hell should they have to? So that American conservatives can carry on as if the world revolves around them, and sod everybody else?

 

[just a believing guy]

Yes. But it doesn't double the amount of CO2. And it only increases global warming if the activity of the sun increases. But it hasn't increased. In fact, if anything, it's the opposite.

But more importantly..... Do you really think that science isn't aware of the role of the sun, ocean currents, vulcano's, forrest fires, etc etc etc in climate and how these things can affect warming or cooling periods??

Do you really think that you are telling them something new or innovative, by pointing at the sun? Come on now... be serious.



Not just in theory. In practice.
If you destroy /mess with the environment, "jobs" will be the LEAST of our problems.

As already posted by othet members, I too doubt that CO2 has such a negative impact compared to the explosives used in the WWII, for example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So? Are we dying yet?

Yes, actually: http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/14/study-quantifies-climate-change-related-deaths/

There are also already climate refugees on the move.
Yes, it has most definatly already begun.

It shows exactly what I said: there is nothing on climate to worry about for at least another one thousand years.

That is ridiculously untrue.

(I trust that you are able to understand the scale of the time axis in the chart you quoted)

The chart shows CO2 levels of the past 400.000 years.
Note that it doubled in just the past century.

The chart doesn't depict the effects thereof, nore does it imply how long it takes before the effects manifest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As already posted by othet members, I too doubt that CO2 has such a negative impact compared to the explosives used in the WWII, for example.

Your doubts are ill-founded and completely ridiculous, I'm sorry to say.

As it stands now, humans pump the same amount of CO2 in the air in just 2.5 hours, as the 9-hour long eruption of Mt St Helens in 1980.

Yes, in terms of CO2 pollution, every 2.5 hours of human activity is the equivalent of a volcanic eruption on the scale of St Helens in 1980.

Let that sink in for a while.

 

[sjastro]

When a forest fire is on, and if you are alerted, then I am sure you are able to get out of the fire in time.

Your analogy alone deserves comment and shows extraordinary ignorance.

I live in a country where bushfires are a part of life and many people have died as a result.
The most recent catastrophe was Black Saturday in 2009 where 173 people perished.
When you have a temperature of >45 deg C with 100 km/hr winds, plus the dry and combustible Australian bush you are very much at the mercy of the elements.
An alert was issued 24 hrs before the fires as catastrophic conditions were predicted for that day.
Needless to say it didn't help those 173 poor individuals plus the injured.

 

[juvenissun]

Why the hell should they have to? So that American conservatives can carry on as if the world revolves around them, and sod everybody else?

Of course, they don't have to.

 

[juvenissun]

The chart doesn't depict the effects thereof, nore does it imply how long it takes before the effects manifest.

Could you find something it does?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Could you find something it does?

I don't understand what you are asking.

Care to rephrase to make it sensible?

 

[RickG]

As already posted by othet members, I too doubt that CO2 has such a negative impact compared to the explosives used in the WWII, for example.

With respect to climate that is not true.

 

[rjs330]

England had serfs (not slaves) from the time of their introduction by the Saxons, up until their virtual disappearance at the end of the thirteenth century.

I'm sure the serfs were very clear on the difference. Especially all those Irish serfs.

 

[KWCrazy]

England had serfs (not slaves) from the time of their introduction by the Saxons, up until their virtual disappearance at the end of the thirteenth century.

Way to deny your country's slave history.
You wiped out half of Ireland and enslaved millions, and now you think you have the right to attack America's founders because they were British citizens who brought your country's evil to our shores?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Way to deny your country's slave history.
You wiped out half of Ireland and enslaved millions, and now you think you have the right to attack America's founders because they were British citizens who brought your country's evil to our shores?

Technically, a serf IS different to a slave in that a serf isn't owned by a person, but belonged to the land.
Although to solely blame America, or even Britain, for slavery is quite historically disingenuous, since literally almost every culture in the world practiced slavery in some form or another.

 

[KWCrazy]

Technically, a serf IS different to a slave in that a serf isn't owned by a person, but belonged to the land.

Did you know that more Irish slaves were sold in the 17th century than black slaves? With a staggering death rate between 37% to 50%...
None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.
Tens of thousands of convicts, beggars, homeless children and other undesirable English, Scottish, and Irish lower class were transported to America against their will to the Americas on slave ships. YES SLAVE SHIPS.

Many of the white slaves were brought from Ireland, where the law held that it was ?no more sin to kill an Irishman than a dog or any other brute.? The European rich class caused a lot of suffering to these people , even if they were white like them....

In the 17th Century, from 1600 until 1699, there were many more Irish sold as slaves than Africans. There are records of Irish slaves well into the 18th Century.Many never made it off the ships. According to written record, in at least one incident 132 slaves, men, women, and children, were dumped overboard to drown because ships’ supplies were running low. They were drowned because the insurance would pay for an “accident,” but not if the slaves were allowed to starve.
source

As I said, the people of the UK have no moral authority to disparagingly call others "slave owners."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did you know that more Irish slaves were sold in the 17th century than black slaves? With a staggering death rate between 37% to 50%...
None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.
Tens of thousands of convicts, beggars, homeless children and other undesirable English, Scottish, and Irish lower class were transported to America against their will to the Americas on slave ships. YES SLAVE SHIPS.

Many of the white slaves were brought from Ireland, where the law held that it was ?no more sin to kill an Irishman than a dog or any other brute.? The European rich class caused a lot of suffering to these people , even if they were white like them....

In the 17th Century, from 1600 until 1699, there were many more Irish sold as slaves than Africans. There are records of Irish slaves well into the 18th Century.Many never made it off the ships. According to written record, in at least one incident 132 slaves, men, women, and children, were dumped overboard to drown because ships’ supplies were running low. They were drowned because the insurance would pay for an “accident,” but not if the slaves were allowed to starve.
source

As I said, the people of the UK have no moral authority to disparagingly call others "slave owners."

The source link doesn't work, just so you know, but an indentured servant, which those Irish were, is not the same as a slave. In fact, the claim that there were more Irish slaves than African slaves is a myth.
Although I guess that you don't care that slavery was illegal in the British Isles since 1772, and that the British Empire did more to try and combat slavery than any other country?
Although this is off-topic so it's not really relevant.

 

[KWCrazy]

...the British Empire did more to try and combat slavery than any other country?

Wow. I didn't know more than 620,000 people died ending slavery in the British Empire.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wow. I didn't know more than 620,000 people died ending slavery in the British Empire.

You do know that while slavery was a big reason for the Civil War, it wasn't the only cause, right?
And what does any of this have to do with the denial of science?

 

[lesliedellow]

Wow. I didn't know more than 620,000 people died ending slavery in the British Empire.

It was the British who had to park warships off the coast of Africa, to try and prevent America carrying on with the slave trade, after it had been abolished throughout the British Empire.

 

[Ophiolite]

Way to deny your country's slave history.
You wiped out half of Ireland and enslaved millions, and now you think you have the right to attack America's founders because they were British citizens who brought your country's evil to our shores?

Although I am quite old I was not old enough to have any responsibility for the Irish potato famine. Nor have I, or any member of my immediate family ever owned a slave or engaged in any aspect of the slave trade.

Therefore, I feel that the past history of my country has no bearing upon what I as an individual choose to praise or condemn. Would you like to explain why something over which I had zero control, perpetrated by individuals to whom I have no substantive connection, should constrain what I am allowed to evaluate? Of course, since this is hopelessly off-topic you might be better to respond by starting a new thread and sending me a pm when you have done so.

Edit: removed a superfluous "over".

 

[RickG]

Let's focus on the topic and only the topic please.