How is climate going to change where you live?

[TambaBerry]

https://fitzlab.shinyapps.io/cityapp/

Came across this today thought it was pretty cool

[Kiimo]

In cases like this you should really investigate the motivations of people telling you "nothing's happening, nothing's wrong, it's just a liberal invention because ~reasons~" Nobody WANTS climate change to be real. Nobody WANTS that nearly impossible task of reducing co2. But it's going to be nearly impossible to accomplish WITHOUT numbskulls coming in and telling you it isn't even real. Meanwhile my brother, a chemical engineer at a Phillips plant in North Texas of all places is in the process of overhauling their plant to attempt to create fossil-free fuel sources.

Phillips Petroleum. In Texas. Believes in climate change. You idiots.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by kc-nd

In North Dakota, we once had a climate that resulted in coal, as in a warm climate, huge vegetative growth, swamps, etc. And we once had a climate where we had a 1-2 mile thickness of ice on the land. Now that’s climate change!

And all those giant round rocks that keep appearing in fields? They're from Canada.

Yeah it's easy not to get excited about crazy predictions being made as the result of man's effects on climate when you can see just how much the effects of real climate change can be.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Typical response. Not interested in debate, interested in imposing your view on everyone else. Sound familiar?

What's the debate though?

It's either real, and we should take care of the environment, or it's not, so..... **** the environment?

And even if the impact down the road is overblown... how could taking care of pollution be a bad thing?

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

What's the debate though?

It's either real, and we should take care of the environment, or it's not, so..... **** the environment?

And even if the impact down the road is overblown... how could taking care of pollution be a bad thing?

First off, are you talking about pollution, or CO2?

Second, if you're talking about 'taking care of' CO2, there are plenty of ways that efforts at reduction can impose 'bad.'

Energy is our lifeblood. Human capacity to harness energy to productive ends is the single biggest factor in our contemporary quality of life, as well as health and longevity.

There are mechanisms for harnessing energy that involve no emission of CO2, but at present and for the foreseeable future, CO2 emission is part of the most efficient, effecitve and affordable way of providing reliable energy to mass populations.

I am all for progress. I am all for finding newer, cheaper, more efficient, more reliable methods of energy producting, harnessing, and transmission.

But moving beyond our current understanding without a new understanding to replace it at the same price will incur severe costs. Some will just be belt tightening. Some will be marginalizing. Some will be deadly.

People like to think that the 'climate change debate' is between deniers who oppose progress and advocates to support progress. But the true 'debate' is between the laws of physics and our understanding of them. Harnessed energy is a powerful tool for human comfort, productivity and achievement, but it is slavishly bound to the laws of the universe that we can only understand, not bend, not erase, not ignore.

[Chiefs=Champions]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

What's the debate though?

It's either real, and we should take care of the environment, or it's not, so..... **** the environment?

And even if the impact down the road is overblown... how could taking care of pollution be a bad thing?

This is exactly what I think. What's wrong with taking out an insurance policy?

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan

So, for instance, it doesn't matter who gets your inheritance? Might as well give it to Uncle Sam because it is somebody else's issue?

No reason to own life insurance? If you die, it doesn't do you any good does it?

Dude, I was being a smartass. I’m 8.5 feet above sea level right now. Property is on the water. My son is probably going to do way better than myself so he’s going to upgrade.

I have lawyer written wills and trusts ready to go if I bite the dust.

[Chiefs=Champions]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

First off, are you talking about pollution, or CO2?

Second, if you're talking about 'taking care of' CO2, there are plenty of ways that efforts at reduction can impose 'bad.'

Energy is our lifeblood. Human capacity to harness energy to productive ends is the single biggest factor in our contemporary quality of life, as well as health and longevity.

There are mechanisms for harnessing energy that involve no emission of CO2, but at present and for the foreseeable future, CO2 emission is part of the most efficient, effecitve and affordable way of providing reliable energy to mass populations.

I am all for progress. I am all for finding newer, cheaper, more efficient, more reliable methods of energy producting, harnessing, and transmission.

But moving beyond our current understanding without a new understanding to replace it at the same price will incur severe costs. Some will just be belt tightening. Some will be marginalizing. Some will be deadly.

I don't think anyone is arguing to rush and change ALL energy production for newer cleaner and potentially dangerous alternatives right this second. But having a plan in place and developing that technology should be.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

What's the debate though?

It's either real, and we should take care of the environment, or it's not, so..... **** the environment?

And even if the impact down the road is overblown... how could taking care of pollution be a bad thing?

Because it's less about taking care of the environment and far more about fleecing taxpayers to the benefit of these "green" companies, the filthy rich globalist scum that back them, and the obedient leftist politicians that shove it down our throats.

Pro tip: "Green" doesn't actually refer to the color of the ****ing grass.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Chiefs=Good

I don't think anyone is arguing to rush and change ALL energy production for newer cleaner and potentially dangerous alternatives right this second. But having a plan in place and developing that technology should be.

So make a plan and develop the technology.

[Kiimo]

And some industries, like coal and petroleum, will do everything in their power to remain relevant as long as possible. Including spreading disinformation and lobbying congressmen and women. Acting like it isn't happening so we can keep strip-mining, drilling and perpetuating coal and natural gas industries is ridiculously short-sided. Ending our reliance on fossil fuels benefits this country in ways that both Republicans and Democrats can appreciate.

But you're going to have to excuse me for being angry about it when Trump waltzes in and assigns a climate change-denier as the head of the mother ****ing EPA and he predictably shits the bed. See that's going backwards.

Then you look at a company like VW that is overhauling their entire fleet to be electric and that's the kind of bold risk-taking that is necessary.

[displacedinMN]

Minneapolis is supposed to feel like Kansas.

Does that mean we get the Chiefs???

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Kiimosabi

And some industries, like coal and petroleum, will do everything in their power to remain relevant as long as possible. Including spreading disinformation and lobbying congressmen and women. Acting like it isn't happening so we can keep strip-mining, drilling and perpetuating coal and natural gas industries is ridiculously short-sided. Ending our reliance on fossil fuels benefits this country in ways that both Republicans and Democrats can appreciate.

But you're going to have to excuse me for being angry about it when Trump waltzes in and assigns a climate change-denier as the head of the mother ****ing EPA and he predictably shits the bed. See that's going backwards.

Then you look at a company like VW that is overhauling their entire fleet to be electric and that's the kind of bold risk-taking that is necessary.

Is that the same VW that recently got fined a billion dollars for programming their cars to fudge the emission numbers?

Bold leadership for the future, there.

[Chiefs=Champions]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

So make a plan and develop the technology.

It has been developed and could be implemented somewhat already.

[Kiimo]

Originally Posted by Frazod

Is that the same VW that recently got fined a billion dollars for programming their cars to fudge the emission numbers?

Bold leadership for the future, there.

That incident is what prompted the change. They completely changed leadership, made Herbert Diess their CEO and then this happened...

https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNe...CN1PV0K4-OCATP

The biggest strategy shift in Volkswagen’s 80 years has its roots in a weekend crisis meeting at the Rothehof guesthouse in Wolfsburg on October 10, 2015, senior executives told Reuters.

At the meeting hosted by then VW brand chief Herbert Diess, nine top managers gathered on a cloudy Saturday afternoon to discuss the way forward after regulators blew the whistle on the company’s emissions cheating, a scandal that cost it more than 27 billion euros in fines and tainted its name.

“It was an intense discussion, so was the realization that this could be an opportunity, if we jump far enough,” said Juergen Stackmann, VW brand’s board member for sales.

“It was an initial planning session to do more than just play with the idea of electric cars,” he told Reuters. “We asked ourselves: what is our vision for the future of the brand? Everything that you see today is connected to this.”

Just three days after the Rothehof meeting of the VW brand’s management board, Volkswagen announced plans to develop an electric vehicle platform, codenamed MEB, paving the way for mass production of an affordable electric car.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Because there's never been polar bears in Russia before...

You guys here make fun of anybody that thinks the earth isn't 5 billion years old but then you believe that 180 years of weather data, out of that FIVE BILLION YEARS, is a relevant statistical sample.

Maybe, I don't know, stick to science instead of government funded propaganda.

With ice core data, scientists can determine the climate hundreds of thousands of years ago. Why do you think that doesn't constitute science? Do you really believe NASA is in the propaganda business?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/