I am afraid with all of the oil and gas wells the world will collapse in on itself. We are pulling a vacuum on and it will implode.

 

My point is that why should we bridle our economy trying to achieve some kind of panacea of carbon reduction if the far larger emitter is not bridled?

Regulations such as those proposed really do affect our economy and if they are based on theory and the sensibilities of the day what is to be gained anyway? And at what cost ?

Studies show that the earth was considerably warmer during Roman times than it is today and somehow or other we all are still managing to be here .

As far as ocean pH levels go I wonder how many points were measured and what kind of historical record they were matched against because I suspect this is fluctuational just his temperature is . What was the ocean pH level 100 years ago 1000 years ago 5000 years ago or 10,000 years ago ?

Many scientists believe that it is virtually impossible to determine average global temperatures because it would require too many data points from too many different places .

Really is much more complicated than but mom China doesn't have to clean his room!

Keep saying this but there have been way too many alarmist prophecies that were the flavor of the day for far too many decades in the past .

Malthus predicted that the earth couldn't possibly survive with a fraction of the people that we have living in it today .

Doesn't anybody remember the story of chicken little anymore ?

 

LOL! So you did not even bother to read it a bit of it!!

Welterusten schatje!!

Thinskin

 

There's no point in banging my head against your wall, and google is easy to use. I found many articles for many of your contentions, but nothing that states with your certainty that these things are not happening. And as far as Oklahoma and fracking go, that you can't see the possibility of there being a connection between mother nature reacting to what we do to her, well... What can I say? We just hold very different views. Good luck with the rising sea levels.

 

Seismicity can be induced at distances of 10 miles or more away from the injection point and at significantly greater depths than the injection point.

 

Disagreeing with it is that the same thing as not reading it .

Why do I even bother with you?

Because I have lost track of what is a waste of time but I'm back on track now .

Why don't you just talk to people who agree with you . That way you won't have to do any thinking .

Bye

 

You mean like Hilary Clinton did!!

How much would I effect change if I only spoke to people who agreed with me!

Surely you see that??

Thinskin

 

I live in Massachusetts. It's most prominent geographical feature is the giant up-turned peninsula called Cape Cod.

A few years ago all the greenies went into a tizzy because Provincetown, the outermost tip of the Cape, was briefly made into an island by a breach in the landmass just south, in Truro.

The seas are rising! PROOF!

Except for two inconvenient truths:

1. For some reason, Provincetown is not an island anymore. Even though it was more than five years ago that this happened.

2. Cape Cod itself was formed by receding glaciers and rising sea levels.


Some day soon-- in a geological blink of an eye, Cape Cod will be gone. Like a sandcastle with the tide. But it won't be catastrophe. It will be the normal changing of the earth.

 

Tales of impending catastrophes have been far too common for me to take seriously anymore . They seem to change about as often as Lady Gaga changes her meat clothing.

Climate change just happens to be the current flavor .

"So the two run and run until they meet Ducky Lucky. - The sky is falling, - says Henny Penny. - We are going to the lion to tell him about it. ... - It hit Chicken Little on the head, - says Henny Penny.

This story and versions like it go back in the literary tradition over 2500 years .

But humans have been gullible for way longer than that .

And that will never change

 

Ask a ''scientist'' to prove the theory, ask a ''scientist'' to explain the theory, ask a ''scientist'' to explain how to curtail the event.

You'll get nothing in return, no answers, no logic, no real definition.

 

The problem is it's almost impossible to prove that something is not true .

I've said this many times but the great scientific philosopher Karl Popper correctly said that if something cannot be proven wrong it cannot be called science

 

The entire phenomonom was raised from the political spectrum.

The political spectrum took a front row seat, early in the game, with funding and the like.

Many ''studies'' were taken from short range weather ''predictions'', along with small global shifts.

Global shifts are being introduced and mistakingly or knowingly interpretted as Climate change.

Sound Science does not exist.

 

I normally wouldn't care what people think . I happen to disagree with the conclusions of climate science but I don't have the patience to deal with the true believers like Clarise does.

She has made excellent arguments against it but those are ignored On here. Or simply written off as right wing corporate propaganda

What I do care about is that an unproven climate event is now forming public policy and is putting the United States into a position where it is in a weaker position comparatively vis-à-vis the Chinese and other rising industrial powers .

They are the bigger emitters so if you want to affect what you believe to be climate change deal with them before you deal with the United States .

 

I stopped being a believer when government got involved.

I stopped be a believer when so many ''studies and reports'' were being dis proven with manipulated efforts to maintain funding.

If it were a ''real issue'', there would be no opposition.

 

That is a very good point that you made in your last sentence .

Science is based on inductive reasoning in which can be severely flawed . As recently as 1972 homosexuality was viewed as a mental illness based on the science from 1972 and earlier .

Public-policy became to treat it as such.

And this is one of the many reasons that I blanch when I hear faulty science being used to construct public policy .

Let me throw this out to you at least to those of you who are open to the philosophy of science on the matter of induction .

According to Popper, the problem of induction as usually conceived is asking the wrong question: it is asking how to justify theories given they cannot be justified by induction. Popper argued that justification is not needed at all, and seeking justification "begs for an authoritarian answer". Instead, Popper said, what should be done is to look to find and correct errors.[29] Popper regarded theories that have survived criticism as better corroborated in proportion to the amount and stringency of the criticism, but, in sharp contrast to the inductivist theories of knowledge, emphatically as less likely to be true.[30] Popper held that seeking for theories with a high probability of being true was a false goal that is in conflict with the search for knowledge. Science should seek for theories that are most probably false on the one hand (which is the same as saying that they are highly falsifiable and so there are lots of ways that they could turn out to be wrong), but still all actual attempts to falsify them have failed so far (that they are highly corroborated)

Note that he said justification For a theory begs for an authoritarian answer.

In other words we might as well be saying shut up I've already explained . Period
End of story.

What I and others have been trying to do is to chip away at the level of certainty that has been bestowed on this theory of climate change .

It's really not an academic issue anymore and it affects our economy and our economy affect people's lives in ways not nearly so theoretical as atmospheric carbon dioxide and it's effects on the climate.

 

I've seen the evidence of climate change on trips to Alaska viewing glacial retreats. It's happening.
I'm not a scientist but I don't see anything good happening by not being responsible stewards of this one planet we live on.

Sure, many other countries aren't doing their part but don't act like a child and say, "But Wong Lee does it!"
Pull up your big girl panties and do your part. You know it's the right thing.

 

Soooooo, the glaciers have never retreated before?

 

Your last line is simply insulting as it was intended to be . Insults are not arguments .

Your comment about Wong Lee is borderline racist. People seem to care about that a lot on here .

Yes I've seen ice melt too. That happens .

You apparently chose not to read anything that I said in my posts or anything that clarise said in hers.

What I am trying to say is that if we cut our emissions to zero it won't make any difference . But it certainly can certainly hurt our economy.

Actually this is my bad, once I put somebody on ignore I rarely regret it . I wont that mistake again.

 

LOLOL!!

You are going to make me shit again!!

You are criticizing others for not reading!

Something about sticks and stones is probably a good idea here!

Thinskin

 

I mean once I put somebody on ignore I should simply continue to ignore them because if they have contributed nothing of value before they are not likely to contribute anything of value at anytime in the future .

I have not been wrong about that yet