THE thread for climate skeptics.

[Sea of red]

And do we predict that all that ice will melt?

Depends on the rise in global temperatures and changes to the dynamics of the ice itself.

[seer]

Depends on the rise in global temperatures and changes to the dynamics of the ice itself.

So we don't know.

[Leonhard]

According to Lurch, they have not risen at all where I live. But Jim's prediction said they will rise 230 feet! Scare tactics?

230 feet if all of it melted. You asked specifically for how much had melted from 1880 till today. Don't you remember what question you asked?

[Leonhard]

And do we predict that all that ice will melt?

Its actually a good question whether we've already damaged the environment so much that the melting of the ice caps has become inevitable.

[Leonhard]

So we don't know.

Take a guy. He asks his doctor "Will I recover my lunge function and not get chronic obstructive lung syndrome?" And the doctor replies "Well, I can't guarantee that you'd recover all your lunge function, but it depends on whether you quit smoking, and start living healthy, as well as other factors such as stress, and so forth." Would it make sense for the patient to reply, puffing on a cigarette "So you really don't know?"

[Irate Canadian]

So we don't know.

Seer. You're better than this.

The scientific consensus at the moment is that if we continue along at unsustainable rates of pollution, it is likely that there will be consequences to the planet. Science will not predict things with 100% accuracy, as there's a margin of error. However, when the stakes are high, and the predictions match what we've seen, it's a good sign that we should be listening to the research.

we can fix this issue. The problem is that people choose to ignore it for short term benefit.

[Sea of red]

Seer. You're better than this.

No.

[Sea of red]

Hey, Irate Canadian, can you play YYZ?

[seer]

we can fix this issue. The problem is that people choose to ignore it for short term benefit.

Actually no we can't and we won't. No country (US, China, India, etc...) will hobble its manufacturing base to comply. People will not give up their cars, and no one will stand for the doubling or tripling their energy costs. One rational way around this would to bring hundreds of new nuclear plants on line, but the left will not allow that. Solar and wind will never cover the needs of our population in the short time that some are claiming that we have.

[seer]

230 feet if all of it melted. You asked specifically for how much had melted from 1880 till today. Don't you remember what question you asked?

No, I asked how much the sea level has risen. And it doesn't look like it has risen everywhere.

[seer]

Take a guy. He asks his doctor "Will I recover my lunge function and not get chronic obstructive lung syndrome?" And the doctor replies "Well, I can't guarantee that you'd recover all your lunge function, but it depends on whether you quit smoking, and start living healthy, as well as other factors such as stress, and so forth." Would it make sense for the patient to reply, puffing on a cigarette "So you really don't know?"

Except we are not going to change, or change enough to make a difference in time. Solar and wind just can not meet our needs at this point.

[Irate Canadian]

Except we are not going to change, or change enough to make a difference in time. Solar and wind just can not meet our needs at this point.

Right, so giving up on the future of our planet is a good idea?

Wind and solar aren't the only options in the room. There's also nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric. And technology isn't stagnant, the power generation mediums increase in both capacity and generation potential as time goes on.

These folks have some suggestion:

http://thesolutionsproject.org/

(They don't include Nuclear IIRC, but even without it, these are implementable goals.)

If I may make a suggestion to you Seer, don't view this on partisan lines. It's not a issue that needs to be.

[Sea of red]

Right, so giving up on the future of our planet is a good idea?

Wind and solar aren't the only options in the room. There's also nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric. And technology isn't stagnant, the power generation mediums increase in both capacity and generation potential as time goes on.

These folks have some suggestion:

http://thesolutionsproject.org/

(They don't include Nuclear IIRC, but even without it, these are implementable goals.)

If I may make a suggestion to you Seer, don't view this on partisan lines. It's not a issue that needs to be.

I think for people like him they need it to be because they value their politics so much over anything else - I'd bet even his religion. I've come to see that most (not all) conservatives would rather chew glass than admit they were wrong about climate change. For them, they need to convince themselves and others that it's 'all politics' because from day one, that's how they've approached this issue.

[TheLurch]

Wind and solar aren't the only options in the room. There's also nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric. And technology isn't stagnant, the power generation mediums increase in both capacity and generation potential as time goes on.

[seer]

Right, so giving up on the future of our planet is a good idea?

Wind and solar aren't the only options in the room. There's also nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric. And technology isn't stagnant, the power generation mediums increase in both capacity and generation potential as time goes on.

These folks have some suggestion:

http://thesolutionsproject.org/

(They don't include Nuclear IIRC, but even without it, these are implementable goals.)

If I may make a suggestion to you Seer, don't view this on partisan lines. It's not a issue that needs to be.

Hey I have no problem with any of this, if they are viable. Nuclear is the best short term solution, but again the left does all it can to stop it. And let me be clear I have no love for big oil or gas, and most people don't care what generates their electricity or heat as long as they are at reasonable prices. Not double or triple what we pay now which I could not afford. And on a side note I probably have a smaller carbon foot print than most on this board, certainly much less than these warmists who fly all over the world and stay in the best hotels, eat the best foods, live in mansions and ride in limousines. They are hypocrites.