If these people are so concerned about global warming

[Australian rePublic]

Global Warming champions keep warning us about how the sea levels will rise. Well, if that's the case then why are global warming champions buying sea side properties. Al Gore purchased a giant seaside mansion in Califronia, USA

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/ ... a289ad4ee8
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... r-swindle/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tale-two-houses/

Aren't you worried, Mr. Gore, that your seaside California mansion will be washed away? I mean, seriously, isn't he worried.

Further, why is former USA president, Barack Hussein Obama II purchasing seaside mansions?

https://nypost.com/2019/08/22/barack-an ... -vineyard/

Isn't he worried that his house will be washed away with the rising sea levels?

Climate Crusader and Australian member of parliament, Zali Steggle, lives in one of Sydney's wealthiest suburbs, on the coast, with no solar panels:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andr ... 18200fe886

If you're so worried about climate change, Senator Steggal, why in the fudge don't you live in a poorer suburb that won't get away when the sea levels rise. The money you make from the sale of your house and purchase of a new house in a cheaper inland area could be used to purchase solar panels, and you'll still have a few hundred thousand (if not million) dollars left over. Further, she drives and SUV? Why, just why? Why can't you ride a bike, Senator Steggal? I mean isn't that what you climate crusaders demand from us plebs, who live tens of kilometres from the CBD to do? If you want us to ride a bike from tens of kilometres to our jobs (many of which are in the CBD, tens of kilometres away) why don't you lead by example? You live very close to the CBD. (For my American readers, CBD= Downtown in Australian terminology). Further, your seat of Warringa has direct bus services to the CBD. When I attended university in the CBD, I used to catch a bus and a train, a journey which took an hour and half in either direction- and Senator Steggal has the option of a direct bus which she doesn't use.

So my question is, why are these global warming crusaders, who can afford to change their life styles, yell at us plebs to change our lifestyles (when we can't afford to), when they buy ocean side properties, which they're worried about.

Further, Bill Nye and John Oliver support a carbon tax claiming that Carbon Tax will incentives businesses to create greener innovations
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ate-change
Firstly, yes, I do think it's a good idea to take business advice from a TV comedian and TV scientist.

Secondly, yea, sure, carbon taxes will incentivise companies to go green- companies like McDonalds, and WalMart, and Coles, companies who have hundreds of millions to spend on R&D. But what about the little guy? Do these people honestly think that small business owner have money coming out of their arses. I know of a few poor business owners who scarifies meals in order to fund their businesses. I'm they'd like to have a word with TV personalities telling them about how they can afford more expenses. Unless your whole goal is to price the little out of their market, in which case, they're being monopolistic arseholes. I mean, Bill Nye even admitted that a carbon tax wouldn't be free. That's all well and good for the big companies, but what about small businesses who already to pay their creditors, do you want those small business owners to go bankrupt? Do you, Mr. Nye? Do you want to bankrupt small business owners? Smh

Climate change has become about rich people who can afford to change their lifestyles but refuse to yelling at middle class and poor people who can't afford to make these changes, because we're not making these changes.

I guess my question is, why does anyone take this crap seriously, anymore?
Anyways, what's your opinion on all this?

[Molonia]

The leaps and bounds made by this OP is ridiculous. Using these people to paint a red brush over environmentalists is something straight out of George Carlin's book.

To insinuate that every environmentalist ever would do the same thing is wholly untruthful.

[Heloin]

What "little guy" is going to be hit with massive carbon taxes? United Airlines? If your business is making enough of a carbon footprint to seriously be affected by a carbon tax could do either you're not a small business or your company should be out of business.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Global Warming is a problem, and some activists will be hypocrites and go after the little guy, and others will try to enjoy the coast while it lasts. Some people being stupid does not mean it is a hoax or that nothing should be done.

[Kannap]

You're so stressed about this, you could've fooled me into believing the sea levels were going to sink these houses tonight at the stroke of midnight.

[Ifreann]

"Super rich people have been buying properties that they might not be able to sell"

Wow, it's almost like the super rich have loads of money they can afford to spend on having a nice view without having to worry about making that money back if the property later becomes worthless.

[Napkizemlja]

I doubt they care what happens to the house they own in a few decades when most of them will be dead. Plus, the major concern is for countries that will be less able to mitigate or counter sea level rise. The US and Australia are both in position to build and maintain extensive sea walls - Kiribati could very well cease to exist.

[Totenborg]

Doctors hate this guy!
Learn his one weird trick!

[Antityranicals]

What "little guy" is going to be hit with massive carbon taxes? United Airlines? If your business is making enough of a carbon footprint to seriously be affected by a carbon tax could do either you're not a small business or your company should be out of business.

Newsflash: corporations don't pay taxes. It's built into their cost structure, and all that happens because of a carbon tax is that prices increase for the consumer. And those increased prices sure as hell hurt every little guy out there.

[Antityranicals]

Let's be honest: Anyone who says that "science proves human-caused global warming" is either a liar, or doesn't know what science is. Science follows the scientific method. It's impossible for a scientific study to be made on the cause of global warming precisely because there is no control variable. We don't have an otherwise exactly identical "Earth without humans" to study. If we did, we could scientifically determine whether or not humans have an effect on climate. But as it is, we literally have no idea why the earth is warming, nor do we know for sure that it is warming beyond a few general short-term trends. (A hundred or so years is crazy short-term in Earth terms) All we have is guesswork, and a large group of special interests who want to use "humans are killing the planet" as an excuse to take control of the economy, and enslave us all to their collective. And even if the guesswork is right, there's no reason to believe that the effects of a few degrees of warming would actually cause any substantial damage, as to be worth the global economic recession that these plans would bring about.

[Bloodshade]

Let's be honest: Anyone who says that "science proves human-caused global warming" is either a liar, or doesn't know what science is. Science follows the scientific method. It's impossible for a scientific study to be made on the cause of global warming precisely because there is no control variable. We don't have an otherwise exactly identical "Earth without humans" to study. If we did, we could scientifically determine whether or not humans have an effect on climate. But as it is, we literally have no idea why the earth is warming, nor do we know for sure that it is warming beyond a few general short-term trends. (A hundred or so years is crazy short-term in Earth terms) All we have is guesswork, and a large group of special interests who want to use "humans are killing the planet" as an excuse to take control of the economy, and enslave us all to their collective. And even if the guesswork is right, there's no reason to believe that the effects of a few degrees of warming would actually cause any substantial damage, as to be worth the global economic recession that these plans would bring about.

This just sounds like 'alternative science'. Spare us, just go ahead and say you're anti science instead of wasting your time conjuring up nonsense and wasting everyone else's time for having to read this.

Let's be honest: Anyone that denies climate change is due to human activity doesn't know what they're talking about.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Let's be honest: Anyone who says that "science proves human-caused global warming" is either a liar, or doesn't know what science is. Science follows the scientific method. It's impossible for a scientific study to be made on the cause of global warming precisely because there is no control variable. We don't have an otherwise exactly identical "Earth without humans" to study. If we did, we could scientifically determine whether or not humans have an effect on climate. But as it is, we literally have no idea why the earth is warming, nor do we know for sure that it is warming beyond a few general short-term trends. (A hundred or so years is crazy short-term in Earth terms) All we have is guesswork, and a large group of special interests who want to use "humans are killing the planet" as an excuse to take control of the economy, and enslave us all to their collective. And even if the guesswork is right, there's no reason to believe that the effects of a few degrees of warming would actually cause any substantial damage, as to be worth the global economic recession that these plans would bring about.

I'm sure someone will refute all or most of this, and you'll just ignore it.

[Kowani]

Let's be honest: Anyone who says that "science proves human-caused global warming" is either a liar, or doesn't know what science is. Science follows the scientific method. It's impossible for a scientific study to be made on the cause of global warming precisely because there is no control variable. We don't have an otherwise exactly identical "Earth without humans" to study. If we did, we could scientifically determine whether or not humans have an effect on climate. But as it is, we literally have no idea why the earth is warming, nor do we know for sure that it is warming beyond a few general short-term trends. (A hundred or so years is crazy short-term in Earth terms) All we have is guesswork, and a large group of special interests who want to use "humans are killing the planet" as an excuse to take control of the economy, and enslave us all to their collective. And even if the guesswork is right, there's no reason to believe that the effects of a few degrees of warming would actually cause any substantial damage, as to be worth the global economic recession that these plans would bring about.

You got your ass kicked last time you tried this. I think I’ll bring it up again:

Look. Science is impossible in this situation, given the obvious lack of control data. We weren't measuring before people were burning fossil fuels, so there's no data without fossil fuels. The best you can hope to come up with is a "the Earth is warming, we don't know why." Fossil fuel emissions is a hypothesis at best. What we DO have vague data on is that the earth warmed significantly about 1,000 years ago, increasing crop yields, and not causing a "global ecological collapse."

Except it's not a hypothesis, its a theory, and a very well-established at that. It has been originally proposed as far back as 1896 that burning coal would eventually heat up the planet, and further research done by climatologists over the next few decades only confirmed such hypothesis, effectively transforming it into a scientific theory. Here is an article of the empirical evidence for human involvement in climate change:
"The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.


Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.

CO2 traps heat
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).


Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.


Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The planet is accumulating heat
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.


Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.

From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.


Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.

So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements."
Source: https://skepticalscience.com/empirical- ... ediate.htm
Recommended material for further overview on what the science says about AGW:
https://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo

[Antityranicals]

Let's be honest: Anyone who says that "science proves human-caused global warming" is either a liar, or doesn't know what science is. Science follows the scientific method. It's impossible for a scientific study to be made on the cause of global warming precisely because there is no control variable. We don't have an otherwise exactly identical "Earth without humans" to study. If we did, we could scientifically determine whether or not humans have an effect on climate. But as it is, we literally have no idea why the earth is warming, nor do we know for sure that it is warming beyond a few general short-term trends. (A hundred or so years is crazy short-term in Earth terms) All we have is guesswork, and a large group of special interests who want to use "humans are killing the planet" as an excuse to take control of the economy, and enslave us all to their collective. And even if the guesswork is right, there's no reason to believe that the effects of a few degrees of warming would actually cause any substantial damage, as to be worth the global economic recession that these plans would bring about.

You got your ass kicked last time you tried this. I think I’ll bring it up again:

Except it's not a hypothesis, its a theory, and a very well-established at that. It has been originally proposed as far back as 1896 that burning coal would eventually heat up the planet, and further research done by climatologists over the next few decades only confirmed such hypothesis, effectively transforming it into a scientific theory. Here is an article of the empirical evidence for human involvement in climate change:
"The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.
(Image)

Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.

CO2 traps heat
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

(Image)
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

(Image)
Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The planet is accumulating heat
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.

(Image)
Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.

From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.

(Image)
Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.

So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements."
Source: https://skepticalscience.com/empirical- ... ediate.htm
Recommended material for further overview on what the science says about AGW:
https://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo

Exactly as I've said, guesswork based on a few short-term trends. The fact that you can demonstrate correlation with a number of scientific looking graphs doesn't mean causation, nor does it mean science. Science is more than observation. Without a control Earth, you've got nothing.

I'll also go ahead and note that you completely overlook the fact that Carbon Dioxide decreases in effectiveness as a greenhouse gas as concentration increases in an exponential ratio. After a point, adding more CO2 will actually cause the atmosphere to trap less heat. The extreme of this is demonstrated on Mars, which has tons of CO2, but very little greenhouse effect.

[Costa Fierro]

My opinion is that the OP's opinion is stupid.

[Kowani]

Exactly as I've said, guesswork based on a few short-term trends. The fact that you can demonstrate correlation with a number of scientific looking graphs doesn't mean causation, nor does it mean science. Science is more than observation. Without a control Earth, you've got nothing.

I mean…we know much of what the world used to look like before industrialization. You heard of the little ice age? But regardless, we do know causation-for decades, actually. But here. And no, that’s not how science works. Controls are for experiments, not necessarily observation. Both are extremely important.

I'll also go ahead and note that you completely overlook the fact that Carbon Dioxide decreases in effectiveness as a greenhouse gas as concentration increases in an exponential ratio. After a point, adding more CO2 will actually cause the atmosphere to trap less heat. The extreme of this is demonstrated on Mars, which has tons of CO2, but very little greenhouse effect.

Mars has little heat because Greenhouse Gases (like CO2, but it’s not the only one) trap heat from the sun. Guess what isn’t hitting Mars? Oh, that’s right. Heat from the sun.

[Ancapistanana]

Global Warming champions keep warning us about how the sea levels will rise. Well, if that's the case then why are global warming champions buying sea side properties. Al Gore purchased a giant seaside mansion in Califronia, USA

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/ ... a289ad4ee8
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... r-swindle/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tale-two-houses/

Aren't you worried, Mr. Gore, that your seaside California mansion will be washed away? I mean, seriously, isn't he worried.

Further, why is former USA president, Barack Hussein Obama II purchasing seaside mansions?

https://nypost.com/2019/08/22/barack-an ... -vineyard/

Isn't he worried that his house will be washed away with the rising sea levels?

Climate Crusader and Australian member of parliament, Zali Steggle, lives in one of Sydney's wealthiest suburbs, on the coast, with no solar panels:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andr ... 18200fe886

If you're so worried about climate change, Senator Steggal, why in the fudge don't you live in a poorer suburb that won't get away when the sea levels rise. The money you make from the sale of your house and purchase of a new house in a cheaper inland area could be used to purchase solar panels, and you'll still have a few hundred thousand (if not million) dollars left over. Further, she drives and SUV? Why, just why? Why can't you ride a bike, Senator Steggal? I mean isn't that what you climate crusaders demand from us plebs, who live tens of kilometres from the CBD to do? If you want us to ride a bike from tens of kilometres to our jobs (many of which are in the CBD, tens of kilometres away) why don't you lead by example? You live very close to the CBD. (For my American readers, CBD= Downtown in Australian terminology). Further, your seat of Warringa has direct bus services to the CBD. When I attended university in the CBD, I used to catch a bus and a train, a journey which took an hour and half in either direction- and Senator Steggal has the option of a direct bus which she doesn't use.

So my question is, why are these global warming crusaders, who can afford to change their life styles, yell at us plebs to change our lifestyles (when we can't afford to), when they buy ocean side properties, which they're worried about.

Further, Bill Nye and John Oliver support a carbon tax claiming that Carbon Tax will incentives businesses to create greener innovations
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ate-change
Firstly, yes, I do think it's a good idea to take business advice from a TV comedian and TV scientist.

Secondly, yea, sure, carbon taxes will incentivise companies to go green- companies like McDonalds, and WalMart, and Coles, companies who have hundreds of millions to spend on R&D. But what about the little guy? Do these people honestly think that small business owner have money coming out of their arses. I know of a few poor business owners who scarifies meals in order to fund their businesses. I'm they'd like to have a word with TV personalities telling them about how they can afford more expenses. Unless your whole goal is to price the little out of their market, in which case, they're being monopolistic arseholes. I mean, Bill Nye even admitted that a carbon tax wouldn't be free. That's all well and good for the big companies, but what about small businesses who already to pay their creditors, do you want those small business owners to go bankrupt? Do you, Mr. Nye? Do you want to bankrupt small business owners? Smh

Climate change has become about rich people who can afford to change their lifestyles but refuse to yelling at middle class and poor people who can't afford to make these changes, because we're not making these changes.

I guess my question is, why does anyone take this crap seriously, anymore?
Anyways, what's your opinion on all this?

"Barack Hussein Obama"
Wow, this man obviously lacks a brain, otherwise he never would have made that statement.

[Cekoviu]

Let's be honest: Anyone who says that "science proves human-caused global warming" is either a liar, or doesn't know what science is. Science follows the scientific method. It's impossible for a scientific study to be made on the cause of global warming precisely because there is no control variable. We don't have an otherwise exactly identical "Earth without humans" to study. If we did, we could scientifically determine whether or not humans have an effect on climate. But as it is, we literally have no idea why the earth is warming, nor do we know for sure that it is warming beyond a few general short-term trends. (A hundred or so years is crazy short-term in Earth terms) All we have is guesswork, and a large group of special interests who want to use "humans are killing the planet" as an excuse to take control of the economy, and enslave us all to their collective. And even if the guesswork is right, there's no reason to believe that the effects of a few degrees of warming would actually cause any substantial damage, as to be worth the global economic recession that these plans would bring about.

Jesus fucking Christ, do you really have such a simplistic understanding of science that you think every study must have a control group? News flash: they don't.
I also see you've made no effort to understand climate science better since the last time you spewed garbage opinions about climate change, so that's fantastic.

[Pretty Much God]

Let's be honest: Anyone who says that "science proves human-caused global warming" is either a liar, or doesn't know what science is. Science follows the scientific method. It's impossible for a scientific study to be made on the cause of global warming precisely because there is no control variable.

Don't even try.
It's much more likely that your entire argument is full of shit, and on top of that, you don't even know what the scientific method is. This is the classic climate change denialist way of thinking; weather = climate, where it does not.
Weather is entirely unpredictable, and we can only predict weather once it happens. We know climate change exists, because our studies have proved it. Climate change is static and predictable; we've seen the signs of the ice caps melting and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we've done the math to predict how the problem will worsen over time. Climate change would never be as important as it is, if "the science" could not prove it.

We don't have an otherwise exactly identical "Earth without humans" to study. If we did, we could scientifically determine whether or not humans have an effect on climate.

We, in fact, did scientifically determine the cause of global warming. Any 5 second search can tell you.

But as it is, we literally have no idea why the earth is warming, nor do we know for sure that it is warming beyond a few general short-term trends. (A hundred or so years is crazy short-term in Earth terms)

See above. The amount of co2 in the air spiked drastically in the last 100 years, it's a "general trend" no matter how you look at it.

All we have is guesswork, and a large group of special interests who want to use "humans are killing the planet" as an excuse to take control of the economy, and enslave us all to their collective.

Congratulations, you not only sounded ignorant, but you managed to successfully slap down "da dayumn liberals" in your denialist argument.

And even if the guesswork is right, there's no reason to believe that the effects of a few degrees of warming would actually cause any substantial damage, as to be worth the global economic recession that these plans would bring about.

If you knew anything about what you were talking about, you would know exactly why "a few degrees" is catastrophic to the planet.

[Pretty Much God]

The extreme of this is demonstrated on Mars, which has tons of CO2, but very little greenhouse effect.

...
Mars. Does not have. A magnetic field.

There is no greenhouse effect, because there is very little atmosphere in the first place. Because there is no. Magnetic. Field.
Any 2nd grader could tell you this.

[Kowani]

...
Mars. Does not have. A magnetic field.

There is no greenhouse effect, because there is very little atmosphere in the first place. Because there is no. Magnetic. Field.
Any 2nd grader could tell you this.

This is the second time in a week I’ve been quoted saying stuff I haven’t said.

[Pretty Much God]

...
Mars. Does not have. A magnetic field.

There is no greenhouse effect, because there is very little atmosphere in the first place. Because there is no. Magnetic. Field.
Any 2nd grader could tell you this.

This is the second time in a week I’ve been quoted saying stuff I haven’t said.

these quotes are really confusing to cut

[Kowani]

This is the second time in a week I’ve been quoted saying stuff I haven’t said.

these quotes are really confusing to cut

Yeah, that’s definitely true.

[The Fascist Undead]

It will take around 100 years for sea levels to eat the coast so these rich guys have a nice long time before there house is washed away. And they will be dead by then.

[Farnhamia]

Global Warming champions keep warning us about how the sea levels will rise. Well, if that's the case then why are global warming champions buying sea side properties. Al Gore purchased a giant seaside mansion in Califronia, USA

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/ ... a289ad4ee8
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... r-swindle/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tale-two-houses/

Aren't you worried, Mr. Gore, that your seaside California mansion will be washed away? I mean, seriously, isn't he worried.

Further, why is former USA president, Barack Hussein Obama II purchasing seaside mansions?

https://nypost.com/2019/08/22/barack-an ... -vineyard/

Isn't he worried that his house will be washed away with the rising sea levels?

Climate Crusader and Australian member of parliament, Zali Steggle, lives in one of Sydney's wealthiest suburbs, on the coast, with no solar panels:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andr ... 18200fe886

If you're so worried about climate change, Senator Steggal, why in the fudge don't you live in a poorer suburb that won't get away when the sea levels rise. The money you make from the sale of your house and purchase of a new house in a cheaper inland area could be used to purchase solar panels, and you'll still have a few hundred thousand (if not million) dollars left over. Further, she drives and SUV? Why, just why? Why can't you ride a bike, Senator Steggal? I mean isn't that what you climate crusaders demand from us plebs, who live tens of kilometres from the CBD to do? If you want us to ride a bike from tens of kilometres to our jobs (many of which are in the CBD, tens of kilometres away) why don't you lead by example? You live very close to the CBD. (For my American readers, CBD= Downtown in Australian terminology). Further, your seat of Warringa has direct bus services to the CBD. When I attended university in the CBD, I used to catch a bus and a train, a journey which took an hour and half in either direction- and Senator Steggal has the option of a direct bus which she doesn't use.

So my question is, why are these global warming crusaders, who can afford to change their life styles, yell at us plebs to change our lifestyles (when we can't afford to), when they buy ocean side properties, which they're worried about.

Further, Bill Nye and John Oliver support a carbon tax claiming that Carbon Tax will incentives businesses to create greener innovations
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ate-change
Firstly, yes, I do think it's a good idea to take business advice from a TV comedian and TV scientist.

Secondly, yea, sure, carbon taxes will incentivise companies to go green- companies like McDonalds, and WalMart, and Coles, companies who have hundreds of millions to spend on R&D. But what about the little guy? Do these people honestly think that small business owner have money coming out of their arses. I know of a few poor business owners who scarifies meals in order to fund their businesses. I'm they'd like to have a word with TV personalities telling them about how they can afford more expenses. Unless your whole goal is to price the little out of their market, in which case, they're being monopolistic arseholes. I mean, Bill Nye even admitted that a carbon tax wouldn't be free. That's all well and good for the big companies, but what about small businesses who already to pay their creditors, do you want those small business owners to go bankrupt? Do you, Mr. Nye? Do you want to bankrupt small business owners? Smh

Climate change has become about rich people who can afford to change their lifestyles but refuse to yelling at middle class and poor people who can't afford to make these changes, because we're not making these changes.

I guess my question is, why does anyone take this crap seriously, anymore?
Anyways, what's your opinion on all this?

"Barack Hussein Obama"
Wow, this man obviously lacks a brain, otherwise he never would have made that statement.

Knock it off with the "lacks a brain" crap.