Wufpack17 said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

I've lived in Salt Lake now for 15 years. Much of the western part of the country is desert. You can't keep growing the populations of places like Utah, Arizona and Vegas and not expect there to be issues. It's been my biggest concern about the growth of greater Salt Lake City.

---

Agreed - to me, the most provable man-driven climate impact is development in naturally dry areas.

I've been to Phoenix / Chandler and driven that whole area, and it's just mind numbing how many homes / businesses are there - you just drive on and on amd on, and it is developed. That water / power has to drawn from elsewhere and just seems like will never catchIs this actual climate change, or is it just misuse/mishandling of resources

---

---

Well, clearly its the latter. But that is why i termed it man-driven climate impact. I don't know if it changes the day-in, day-out climate, but it most certainly impacts the results of the climate. But when you put down that much concreted on a desert, then you're sucking that much water out of the ground, and changing what God has created there....it can't be good.


To me, a similar example -- Hurricane Harvey in Houston. Stalled out and dropped 40+ inches of rain over several days. Terrible flooding. Now, i have no idea if climate change caused the storm. We've always had hurricanes (that area suffered the most deadly ever in Galveston 100 years ago).
And if that area had been left to the swamps and bayous that it was 200 years ago, all that rain would have had recourse. Instead, its now a concrete jungle with development where it just shouldn't be.
So now you have a huge climate impact -- hurricane produces catastrophic flooding in great part because human development destroyed what God intended with run off.

---

I guess that's my question regarding "climate change" arguments. Many arguments discuss the events that cause "catastrophic damage." But, if we build more stuff then there is more stuff to destroy.

I 100% believe that things are changing. I'm not convinced it's all on man. Our planet goes in cycles. Studies that go beyond the last 500-1000 years show this.

I do believe our environment needs help. I'm more worried about trash in our oceans and other waterways. These are the things that bother me. I'm of the opinion that our environment needs a cleansing and that is something we can have a bigger quicker impact on.

---

I'm with you on that. I do think there is a man-made element, but our measurements are somewhat limited in relation to other micro-cycles. And to me, the more immediate threat is the every day water/air we come into contact with.

I went on a mission trip last summer to Honduras. Every part of the country could use a cleanse (when you're poor and trying to get by, trash just doesn't matter as much, i guess)
But on our fun day, we went to this beach resort called La Ensenada. At the entrance, the planned layout was beautiful, with waterways with piers and people stand up paddleboarding with homes on the water, etc.
In reality....when we crossed over these canals, they were clogged with every kind of rubbish you could imagine.

Multiply that across the country, many of the waters serving as sources of drinking / cleaning for people....and you can see why illness, etc.

I do think this is one area where US has really improved. Nowhere near perfect, but our waterways are much cleaner now. I think people want to be able to use them, want to be able to recreate, fish, swim, etc.

---

I think most people care about trash all over the place. I remember seeing cigarette buts everywhere, on the streets. That bothered me, immensely. I'm not sure how to deal with this selfish act.

We should have continuous cleaning of our country; however, other countries need to be accountable to their own. Regarding Climate Change, I'm not bought in at all. Too many changes in the name of the crisis for me to… just believe it. Call me simple minded.

---

I'd amend your 1st para to add the qualifier "in developed countries". As my example about Honduras -- go to poor countries (and away from the beach-front resorts), and you'll see issues

As for climate change, I don't think there is any doubt that it is occurring. Now, is it man affected? Is it too short a period of time to know if it is a usual trend in the billions of years of earth age, or a real issue? I have my opinions, but thats all they are.

But three examples:
1) Tornado alley has shifted from TX/OK/KS -- the plains -- to the Southeast up thru KY, OH, etc. A noticeable tick downwards in the plains and upwards in the SE. But realistically, we only have ~150 years of knowledge about this...so is this just a trend back to the norm, or a blip, or what?

2) Polar Ice cap -- NASA measurements suggest in coverage, thickness, and average ice age, all significant reductions since 1980s. Again, is this a normal cycle over a 40 year period versus the billions of years of earth?

3) Glacier National. Significant glacier reduction since the 1850s, from 130 to 20-something. Other areas have seen similar reduction. Is this a normal trend over hundreds/thousands of years, or has the acceleration been enhanced?

Certainly the doom-n-gloom forecasts of well known tourism spots under the water by 20xx and all that cast a negative view of those who suggest global climate change...but I don't think there is any doubt its occurring.
I'm just not sure if its normal, or enhanced, and while I think we should always consider the environment in all of our legislative and business decisions, that it shouldn't be the overwhelming driver that it sometimes is today.*

**Or if it is, it should be localized -- meaning, I can fully understand why the SW states would apply much more consideration of water table impacts on whether to allow more development to occur, for example, than what authorities in the Carolinas might do.

---

Chem there are studies out there that have come from the polar ice samples that show evidence of these trends going back several hundred thousand years. The trends show we're on the upward end of a warming trend with a cold downfall looming. The problem with current pro "climate change" models are that they only focus on the last few hundred years.

Again as we know, you can shape any study to fit the narrative you want to produce. So, take it for what it's worth.

---

I agree to the extent that our measurements are taking a view of 200 years versus millions.
And that stories can be spun in multiple ways. As I said, I think caution has to be given to creating legislation driven by this data in a vacuum.
But purely my opinion.....you pump out the amount of CO2 we do now with the WW population growth over the past 10, 20, 50 years....it HAS to affect something. Its ultimately a fixed formula of inputs and outputs....and we've drastically changed the amount of inputs.

---

Many of the folks that are against this climate change model, agree that there is an effect of man made carbon output, but that the effect on our climate is negligible.

I'm going to use SLC as an example of where my head is at. Air quality is a huge talking point out here. We have a thing called inversion here and it happens because we live in a bowl in the valley. It happens in the winter and it's basically an absence of weather. There is no wind or anything to circulate the air and all the normal pollutants get trapped in the bowl.

When this happens, the air gets mucky and ugly and sticks around for a few days until a weather system comes along and blows it out and clears the air. During this time, the climate change group screams and yells about how big of an issue it is. We get 15-20 days of it per year. The rest of the year is beautiful.

Now, if you talk to folks born and raised here, it was a lot worse in the 70's and 80's when everything was coal burning and cars weren't as clean. They say it could be weeks and sometimes months of crappy air during the winter. But, the population now is 2-3 times what it was at those times.

Manufacturing is cleaner in this country than ever and cars are cleaner than ever, despite a growth in population. Despite all of this in SLC, local government is pushing an inland port that will bring more and more diesel trucks to the valley. So, is it important or not? Or is it only important when the economics matter?

That's why I'm more worried about the trash build up in our environment. That is something we can better control and vastly help our planet we live in.

---

three takeways from that. (and I agree...these are the type of reasonable discussions that SHOULD be happening...not the overly sensitively reactions on either extreme that seem to dominate the topic

1) there is no doubt that people / media seize on a 1-2 day occurrence and try to say THAT is a sign. Well, it may be. Or it could be that its the same thing that happens a couple of x a year for 100000 years.

2) no doubt -- changes already enacted about coal emissions and other such have helped tremendously from back in the 70s -- those smog pictures from the western cities that get the stale weather at times of the year.....so much better now. But....those are result of legislation that drove reduction.

3) the scenario you paint about the decision SLC to make on inland port --- fjobs / $$ vs environmental impact -- shapes every local decision to be made nowadays, rightly so. Seems, to your point -- within boundaries established at the federal level, it shoudl be up to the locals to decide what they value more.

**as a guy who loves the water, I'd prefer not to have a port in my town. But they can bring some serious jobs

---

You mean like the house that fell into the Atlantic in OBX and it was immediately tied to climate change? Not the fact that OBX is a group of barrier islands that travelled over 50,000 feet since they were created just 50,000 years ago.

Or a lake drying up in a desert...

A lot of our "issues" are a result of decisions being made to build things in places where they should never have been built, thinking we could combat mother nature. It has nothing to do with Climate Change.

---

dogplasma said:

---

Here's a question that I promise is genuine and not a setup. For those that discount climate change, or are even just on the fence, what sort of information would make you think that it's a real thing? In other words, pretend that climate change becomes real in the future. What would it be that would tip the scales for you personally? Is there some specific trend or observation, or would you need to hear it endorsed by a specific source?

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Wufpack17 said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

I've lived in Salt Lake now for 15 years. Much of the western part of the country is desert. You can't keep growing the populations of places like Utah, Arizona and Vegas and not expect there to be issues. It's been my biggest concern about the growth of greater Salt Lake City.

---

Agreed - to me, the most provable man-driven climate impact is development in naturally dry areas.

I've been to Phoenix / Chandler and driven that whole area, and it's just mind numbing how many homes / businesses are there - you just drive on and on amd on, and it is developed. That water / power has to drawn from elsewhere and just seems like will never catchIs this actual climate change, or is it just misuse/mishandling of resources

---

---

Well, clearly its the latter. But that is why i termed it man-driven climate impact. I don't know if it changes the day-in, day-out climate, but it most certainly impacts the results of the climate. But when you put down that much concreted on a desert, then you're sucking that much water out of the ground, and changing what God has created there....it can't be good.


To me, a similar example -- Hurricane Harvey in Houston. Stalled out and dropped 40+ inches of rain over several days. Terrible flooding. Now, i have no idea if climate change caused the storm. We've always had hurricanes (that area suffered the most deadly ever in Galveston 100 years ago).
And if that area had been left to the swamps and bayous that it was 200 years ago, all that rain would have had recourse. Instead, its now a concrete jungle with development where it just shouldn't be.
So now you have a huge climate impact -- hurricane produces catastrophic flooding in great part because human development destroyed what God intended with run off.

---

I guess that's my question regarding "climate change" arguments. Many arguments discuss the events that cause "catastrophic damage." But, if we build more stuff then there is more stuff to destroy.

I 100% believe that things are changing. I'm not convinced it's all on man. Our planet goes in cycles. Studies that go beyond the last 500-1000 years show this.

I do believe our environment needs help. I'm more worried about trash in our oceans and other waterways. These are the things that bother me. I'm of the opinion that our environment needs a cleansing and that is something we can have a bigger quicker impact on.

---

I'm with you on that. I do think there is a man-made element, but our measurements are somewhat limited in relation to other micro-cycles. And to me, the more immediate threat is the every day water/air we come into contact with.

I went on a mission trip last summer to Honduras. Every part of the country could use a cleanse (when you're poor and trying to get by, trash just doesn't matter as much, i guess)
But on our fun day, we went to this beach resort called La Ensenada. At the entrance, the planned layout was beautiful, with waterways with piers and people stand up paddleboarding with homes on the water, etc.
In reality....when we crossed over these canals, they were clogged with every kind of rubbish you could imagine.

Multiply that across the country, many of the waters serving as sources of drinking / cleaning for people....and you can see why illness, etc.

I do think this is one area where US has really improved. Nowhere near perfect, but our waterways are much cleaner now. I think people want to be able to use them, want to be able to recreate, fish, swim, etc.

---

I think most people care about trash all over the place. I remember seeing cigarette buts everywhere, on the streets. That bothered me, immensely. I'm not sure how to deal with this selfish act.

We should have continuous cleaning of our country; however, other countries need to be accountable to their own. Regarding Climate Change, I'm not bought in at all. Too many changes in the name of the crisis for me to… just believe it. Call me simple minded.

---

I'd amend your 1st para to add the qualifier "in developed countries". As my example about Honduras -- go to poor countries (and away from the beach-front resorts), and you'll see issues

As for climate change, I don't think there is any doubt that it is occurring. Now, is it man affected? Is it too short a period of time to know if it is a usual trend in the billions of years of earth age, or a real issue? I have my opinions, but thats all they are.

But three examples:
1) Tornado alley has shifted from TX/OK/KS -- the plains -- to the Southeast up thru KY, OH, etc. A noticeable tick downwards in the plains and upwards in the SE. But realistically, we only have ~150 years of knowledge about this...so is this just a trend back to the norm, or a blip, or what?

2) Polar Ice cap -- NASA measurements suggest in coverage, thickness, and average ice age, all significant reductions since 1980s. Again, is this a normal cycle over a 40 year period versus the billions of years of earth?

3) Glacier National. Significant glacier reduction since the 1850s, from 130 to 20-something. Other areas have seen similar reduction. Is this a normal trend over hundreds/thousands of years, or has the acceleration been enhanced?

Certainly the doom-n-gloom forecasts of well known tourism spots under the water by 20xx and all that cast a negative view of those who suggest global climate change...but I don't think there is any doubt its occurring.
I'm just not sure if its normal, or enhanced, and while I think we should always consider the environment in all of our legislative and business decisions, that it shouldn't be the overwhelming driver that it sometimes is today.*

**Or if it is, it should be localized -- meaning, I can fully understand why the SW states would apply much more consideration of water table impacts on whether to allow more development to occur, for example, than what authorities in the Carolinas might do.

---

Chem there are studies out there that have come from the polar ice samples that show evidence of these trends going back several hundred thousand years. The trends show we're on the upward end of a warming trend with a cold downfall looming. The problem with current pro "climate change" models are that they only focus on the last few hundred years.

Again as we know, you can shape any study to fit the narrative you want to produce. So, take it for what it's worth.

---

I agree to the extent that our measurements are taking a view of 200 years versus millions.
And that stories can be spun in multiple ways. As I said, I think caution has to be given to creating legislation driven by this data in a vacuum.
But purely my opinion.....you pump out the amount of CO2 we do now with the WW population growth over the past 10, 20, 50 years....it HAS to affect something. Its ultimately a fixed formula of inputs and outputs....and we've drastically changed the amount of inputs.

---

Many of the folks that are against this climate change model, agree that there is an effect of man made carbon output, but that the effect on our climate is negligible.

I'm going to use SLC as an example of where my head is at. Air quality is a huge talking point out here. We have a thing called inversion here and it happens because we live in a bowl in the valley. It happens in the winter and it's basically an absence of weather. There is no wind or anything to circulate the air and all the normal pollutants get trapped in the bowl.

When this happens, the air gets mucky and ugly and sticks around for a few days until a weather system comes along and blows it out and clears the air. During this time, the climate change group screams and yells about how big of an issue it is. We get 15-20 days of it per year. The rest of the year is beautiful.

Now, if you talk to folks born and raised here, it was a lot worse in the 70's and 80's when everything was coal burning and cars weren't as clean. They say it could be weeks and sometimes months of crappy air during the winter. But, the population now is 2-3 times what it was at those times.

Manufacturing is cleaner in this country than ever and cars are cleaner than ever, despite a growth in population. Despite all of this in SLC, local government is pushing an inland port that will bring more and more diesel trucks to the valley. So, is it important or not? Or is it only important when the economics matter?

That's why I'm more worried about the trash build up in our environment. That is something we can better control and vastly help our planet we live in.

---

three takeways from that. (and I agree...these are the type of reasonable discussions that SHOULD be happening...not the overly sensitively reactions on either extreme that seem to dominate the topic

1) there is no doubt that people / media seize on a 1-2 day occurrence and try to say THAT is a sign. Well, it may be. Or it could be that its the same thing that happens a couple of x a year for 100000 years.

2) no doubt -- changes already enacted about coal emissions and other such have helped tremendously from back in the 70s -- those smog pictures from the western cities that get the stale weather at times of the year.....so much better now. But....those are result of legislation that drove reduction.

3) the scenario you paint about the decision SLC to make on inland port --- fjobs / $$ vs environmental impact -- shapes every local decision to be made nowadays, rightly so. Seems, to your point -- within boundaries established at the federal level, it shoudl be up to the locals to decide what they value more.

**as a guy who loves the water, I'd prefer not to have a port in my town. But they can bring some serious jobs

---

You mean like the house that fell into the Atlantic in OBX and it was immediately tied to climate change? Not the fact that OBX is a group of barrier islands that travelled over 50,000 feet since they were created just 50,000 years ago.

Or a lake drying up in a desert...

A lot of our "issues" are a result of decisions being made to build things in places where they should never have been built, thinking we could combat mother nature. It has nothing to do with Climate Change.

---

Yep -- made the same point earlier in this thread. In your desert scenario, throw in development that has seen millions of humans build homes and business in said desert. What did anyone think was going to happen?

Or Houston -- Hurricane Harvey was terrible and dumped unbelievable volumes of rain, but when you put all that asphalt in wetlands, and now instead of that natural barrier for runoff, you have streets and parking lots and driveways...it just exacerbates the issue and creates a crisis where one may have been absorbed 100 years ago

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Wufpack17 said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

I've lived in Salt Lake now for 15 years. Much of the western part of the country is desert. You can't keep growing the populations of places like Utah, Arizona and Vegas and not expect there to be issues. It's been my biggest concern about the growth of greater Salt Lake City.

---

Agreed - to me, the most provable man-driven climate impact is development in naturally dry areas.

I've been to Phoenix / Chandler and driven that whole area, and it's just mind numbing how many homes / businesses are there - you just drive on and on amd on, and it is developed. That water / power has to drawn from elsewhere and just seems like will never catchIs this actual climate change, or is it just misuse/mishandling of resources

---

---

Well, clearly its the latter. But that is why i termed it man-driven climate impact. I don't know if it changes the day-in, day-out climate, but it most certainly impacts the results of the climate. But when you put down that much concreted on a desert, then you're sucking that much water out of the ground, and changing what God has created there....it can't be good.


To me, a similar example -- Hurricane Harvey in Houston. Stalled out and dropped 40+ inches of rain over several days. Terrible flooding. Now, i have no idea if climate change caused the storm. We've always had hurricanes (that area suffered the most deadly ever in Galveston 100 years ago).
And if that area had been left to the swamps and bayous that it was 200 years ago, all that rain would have had recourse. Instead, its now a concrete jungle with development where it just shouldn't be.
So now you have a huge climate impact -- hurricane produces catastrophic flooding in great part because human development destroyed what God intended with run off.

---

I guess that's my question regarding "climate change" arguments. Many arguments discuss the events that cause "catastrophic damage." But, if we build more stuff then there is more stuff to destroy.

I 100% believe that things are changing. I'm not convinced it's all on man. Our planet goes in cycles. Studies that go beyond the last 500-1000 years show this.

I do believe our environment needs help. I'm more worried about trash in our oceans and other waterways. These are the things that bother me. I'm of the opinion that our environment needs a cleansing and that is something we can have a bigger quicker impact on.

---

I'm with you on that. I do think there is a man-made element, but our measurements are somewhat limited in relation to other micro-cycles. And to me, the more immediate threat is the every day water/air we come into contact with.

I went on a mission trip last summer to Honduras. Every part of the country could use a cleanse (when you're poor and trying to get by, trash just doesn't matter as much, i guess)
But on our fun day, we went to this beach resort called La Ensenada. At the entrance, the planned layout was beautiful, with waterways with piers and people stand up paddleboarding with homes on the water, etc.
In reality....when we crossed over these canals, they were clogged with every kind of rubbish you could imagine.

Multiply that across the country, many of the waters serving as sources of drinking / cleaning for people....and you can see why illness, etc.

I do think this is one area where US has really improved. Nowhere near perfect, but our waterways are much cleaner now. I think people want to be able to use them, want to be able to recreate, fish, swim, etc.

---

I think most people care about trash all over the place. I remember seeing cigarette buts everywhere, on the streets. That bothered me, immensely. I'm not sure how to deal with this selfish act.

We should have continuous cleaning of our country; however, other countries need to be accountable to their own. Regarding Climate Change, I'm not bought in at all. Too many changes in the name of the crisis for me to… just believe it. Call me simple minded.

---

I'd amend your 1st para to add the qualifier "in developed countries". As my example about Honduras -- go to poor countries (and away from the beach-front resorts), and you'll see issues

As for climate change, I don't think there is any doubt that it is occurring. Now, is it man affected? Is it too short a period of time to know if it is a usual trend in the billions of years of earth age, or a real issue? I have my opinions, but thats all they are.

But three examples:
1) Tornado alley has shifted from TX/OK/KS -- the plains -- to the Southeast up thru KY, OH, etc. A noticeable tick downwards in the plains and upwards in the SE. But realistically, we only have ~150 years of knowledge about this...so is this just a trend back to the norm, or a blip, or what?

2) Polar Ice cap -- NASA measurements suggest in coverage, thickness, and average ice age, all significant reductions since 1980s. Again, is this a normal cycle over a 40 year period versus the billions of years of earth?

3) Glacier National. Significant glacier reduction since the 1850s, from 130 to 20-something. Other areas have seen similar reduction. Is this a normal trend over hundreds/thousands of years, or has the acceleration been enhanced?

Certainly the doom-n-gloom forecasts of well known tourism spots under the water by 20xx and all that cast a negative view of those who suggest global climate change...but I don't think there is any doubt its occurring.
I'm just not sure if its normal, or enhanced, and while I think we should always consider the environment in all of our legislative and business decisions, that it shouldn't be the overwhelming driver that it sometimes is today.*

**Or if it is, it should be localized -- meaning, I can fully understand why the SW states would apply much more consideration of water table impacts on whether to allow more development to occur, for example, than what authorities in the Carolinas might do.

---

Chem there are studies out there that have come from the polar ice samples that show evidence of these trends going back several hundred thousand years. The trends show we're on the upward end of a warming trend with a cold downfall looming. The problem with current pro "climate change" models are that they only focus on the last few hundred years.

Again as we know, you can shape any study to fit the narrative you want to produce. So, take it for what it's worth.

---

I agree to the extent that our measurements are taking a view of 200 years versus millions.
And that stories can be spun in multiple ways. As I said, I think caution has to be given to creating legislation driven by this data in a vacuum.
But purely my opinion.....you pump out the amount of CO2 we do now with the WW population growth over the past 10, 20, 50 years....it HAS to affect something. Its ultimately a fixed formula of inputs and outputs....and we've drastically changed the amount of inputs.

---

Many of the folks that are against this climate change model, agree that there is an effect of man made carbon output, but that the effect on our climate is negligible.

I'm going to use SLC as an example of where my head is at. Air quality is a huge talking point out here. We have a thing called inversion here and it happens because we live in a bowl in the valley. It happens in the winter and it's basically an absence of weather. There is no wind or anything to circulate the air and all the normal pollutants get trapped in the bowl.

When this happens, the air gets mucky and ugly and sticks around for a few days until a weather system comes along and blows it out and clears the air. During this time, the climate change group screams and yells about how big of an issue it is. We get 15-20 days of it per year. The rest of the year is beautiful.

Now, if you talk to folks born and raised here, it was a lot worse in the 70's and 80's when everything was coal burning and cars weren't as clean. They say it could be weeks and sometimes months of crappy air during the winter. But, the population now is 2-3 times what it was at those times.

Manufacturing is cleaner in this country than ever and cars are cleaner than ever, despite a growth in population. Despite all of this in SLC, local government is pushing an inland port that will bring more and more diesel trucks to the valley. So, is it important or not? Or is it only important when the economics matter?

That's why I'm more worried about the trash build up in our environment. That is something we can better control and vastly help our planet we live in.

---

three takeways from that. (and I agree...these are the type of reasonable discussions that SHOULD be happening...not the overly sensitively reactions on either extreme that seem to dominate the topic

1) there is no doubt that people / media seize on a 1-2 day occurrence and try to say THAT is a sign. Well, it may be. Or it could be that its the same thing that happens a couple of x a year for 100000 years.

2) no doubt -- changes already enacted about coal emissions and other such have helped tremendously from back in the 70s -- those smog pictures from the western cities that get the stale weather at times of the year.....so much better now. But....those are result of legislation that drove reduction.

3) the scenario you paint about the decision SLC to make on inland port --- fjobs / $$ vs environmental impact -- shapes every local decision to be made nowadays, rightly so. Seems, to your point -- within boundaries established at the federal level, it shoudl be up to the locals to decide what they value more.

**as a guy who loves the water, I'd prefer not to have a port in my town. But they can bring some serious jobs

---

You mean like the house that fell into the Atlantic in OBX and it was immediately tied to climate change? Not the fact that OBX is a group of barrier islands that travelled over 50,000 feet since they were created just 50,000 years ago.

Or a lake drying up in a desert...

A lot of our "issues" are a result of decisions being made to build things in places where they should never have been built, thinking we could combat mother nature. It has nothing to do with Climate Change.

---

Yep -- made the same point earlier in this thread. In your desert scenario, throw in development that has seen millions of humans build homes and business in said desert. What did anyone think was going to happen?

Or Houston -- Hurricane Harvey was terrible and dumped unbelievable volumes of rain, but when you put all that asphalt in wetlands, and now instead of that natural barrier for runoff, you have streets and parking lots and driveways...it just exacerbates the issue and creates a crisis where one may have been absorbed 100 years ago

---

So, the liberals are correct…. It is man-made!

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Why couldn't it be that we've seen information that says the climate is changing, but that it's happening naturally the way it has for the life of our planet? The info that I've seen says we're nearing the peak of the planet warming, as it does about every 15,000 years. And then, we will start to get colder.

Earth has been a lot hotter.
Earth has been a lot colder.
Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and it was before the industrial revolution.

Why do you automatically assume it's because of the messenger and not because of the "science?"

---

dogplasma said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Why couldn't it be that we've seen information that says the climate is changing, but that it's happening naturally the way it has for the life of our planet? The info that I've seen says we're nearing the peak of the planet warming, as it does about every 15,000 years. And then, we will start to get colder.

Earth has been a lot hotter.
Earth has been a lot colder.
Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and it was before the industrial revolution.

Why do you automatically assume it's because of the messenger and not because of the "science?"

---

I really wasn't making any assumptions with the question. I think people in general, on all sides, form their beliefs based on some combination of information and source and I was curious about that. Your CO2 statement for example: The historical data reported by NASA and the NOAA shows levels nearly twice as high today as in the last 800,000 years. I can't verify that myself to any extent, but I see those sources as accurate and apolitical.

---

dogplasma said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Why couldn't it be that we've seen information that says the climate is changing, but that it's happening naturally the way it has for the life of our planet? The info that I've seen says we're nearing the peak of the planet warming, as it does about every 15,000 years. And then, we will start to get colder.

Earth has been a lot hotter.
Earth has been a lot colder.
Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and it was before the industrial revolution.

Why do you automatically assume it's because of the messenger and not because of the "science?"

---

I really wasn't making any assumptions with the question. I think people in general, on all sides, form their beliefs based on some combination of information and source and I was curious about that. Your CO2 statement for example: The historical data reported by NASA and the NOAA shows levels nearly twice as high today as in the last 800,000 years. I can't verify that myself to any extent, but I see those sources as accurate and apolitical.

---

Quote:

---

While Congress was able to salvage some of the Constellation program, setting the stage for our next president to restore the program, the Obama administration turned NASA's focus towards a much less awe-inspiring goal: Combating "global warming."

During the Obama administration, NASA's focus on earth sciences has risen 41 percent, while its core focus of space exploration has been essentially gutted. In 2012, 49 former NASA astronauts and scientists petitioned NASA to cease its advocacy of "extreme" positions relating to the environment.
Political leaders from both sides of the aisle have found this shift in the agency's focus very unsettling.

With the increasing espionage threat from China and the loss in overall scientific advancement many congressional leaders fear the unintended consequences could be massive.

---

dogplasma said:

---

I guess your point is that NASA isn't apolitical? They're a government funded agency so they certainly see priorities shift with each administration. But that doesn't mean the results that come from the missions they run are predetermined or purely political. I get the argument, but that doesn't give much credit to the majority of scientists or the scientific process. But that's also not really where I was headed.

Edit: Actually, I take that back. I guess that's exactly where I was headed. I trust results from someplace like NASA and you don't for the reason that (I think) you gave. Fair enough.

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Interesting article by Michael Shellenberger on the push for renewables and the Green New Deal. Bottom line, a lot of the zealots pushing for a complete conversion to renewables for energy production are anti-industrialists and anti-capitalists. They believe an all natural approach to the world's energy production is the best approach, even if their solution is more harmful than nuclear power and damaging to the environment than nuclear energy.

The Real Reason They Hate Nuclear Is Because It Means We Don't Need Renewables

---

dogplasma said:

---

I think they do build a whole new nuclear plant but they use the location of the old coal plant. I hadn't heard of that before but I can see how that would eliminate having to find the site for the new nuke plant.

---

Rep. @RashidaTlaib challenges bank CEOs to agree to stop funding fossil fuels, is rejected by every single one

Jamie Dimon: "That would be the road to Hell for America" pic.twitter.com/U7yr6AbtyF

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) September 21, 2022

Quote:

---

dogplasma said:
No, I don't. I didn't realize Canada received hurricane force winds that often. I thought they normally dissipated before getting that far north.

Here's a drone video from inside Fiona:

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/ocean-surfing-drone-sends-back-eerie-video-from-inside-hurricane-fiona/

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
The 2020 North Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most active on record

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active on record, with 30 named storms and 11 of those making landfall. A study published in the most recent issue of Nature Communications finds that anthropogenic climate change (change defined by humans' impact) increased hourly rainfall amounts during the season by up to 10%.

---

This is Randall Carlson, a researcher with 40+ years in the field. #ClimateChangeHoax pic.twitter.com/R8rE3gPhDy

— CanadianPatriot1974 (@CPatriot1974) September 8, 2022