• Why must each successive climate report be more scary than before?

    After 30 years it is wearing a bit thin
    After 30 years it is wearing a bit thin
    12 answers · 10 hours ago
  • How do we stop climate change?

    60 answers · 5 days ago
  • Would a global carbon tax be the best way to defeat the negative aspects of globalism?

    Best answer: In an ideal world, yes. But in an ideal world we wouldn't have to either. Globalism is going to happen, people will try to make money legally or illegally, this is true under communism, capitalism or anything in between. Furthermore, corruption is rife everywhere, even in Ontario Canada we see the newly... show more
    Best answer: In an ideal world, yes. But in an ideal world we wouldn't have to either.

    Globalism is going to happen, people will try to make money legally or illegally, this is true under communism, capitalism or anything in between. Furthermore, corruption is rife everywhere, even in Ontario Canada we see the newly elected right wing leader, who ran on a platform against bureaucracy and government overreach, trying to get the police to buy him a nice new camper van according to his specifications. But an 11 dollar and 23 cents (US) minimum wage is too much. And Canada is ranked as a functional democracy. (unlike the US)

    That does not mean a revenue neutral carbon tax does not work. Again Canada is giving it's citizens a full share of the money collected, with the rural community getting far more than people in urban area's. Even then there is still opposition. So I cannot see people supporting handing money to countries when there is a distinct possibility that some of the money going to corrupt politicians around the world. Countries can put in their own carbon taxes if they choose to and have the countries independently audited. Countries failing to comply could be subject to duties equivalent to a carbon tax.

    The fossil fuel industry is trying to delay action, they donate to politicians who are friendly to the industry, politicians who support subsidies for their industry and getting government to impose duties on competitors. Exxon does support a small carbon tax, in exchange for lenient regulation. Trump put a 55% tax on solar and is toying with the idea to use a war act to force utilities to buy their electricity at inflated prices from coal and nuclear plants.

    Deniers are claiming that the French In France the government had to reverse a carbon tax( which revenues were meant to subsidize green industries like wind and solar, the shut down of 14 nuclear power plants, and eventually shut down all French coal plants by 2022) because protestors were concerned the money would be used to subsidize a tax cuts for the rich. Government reversed the carbon tax, but protests are continuing, below are some of their demands.

    1. Housing for all homeless people
    2. A more progressive tax system
    3. Minimum wage of 1,300€/month
    4. Measures to protect small businesses (stop building malls, no more “big box” stores), more parking spaces in downtowns
    5. Government program for insulating homes & other buildings
    6. Big businesses (McDonald’s, Google, Amazon...) should pay big taxes & small businesses pay small ones
    7. Same health insurance system for all (including self-employed)

    The list goes on...

    So now we see Sagebrush, who hates equality and communism, supporting the yellow vests. Go figure.

    So no, a global carbon tax would not work But the US imposing a revenue neutral one and imposing import duties based on carbon pollution would work.
    18 answers · 2 days ago
  • Will California go under water due to climate?

    Best answer: Nope
    Best answer: Nope
    16 answers · 3 days ago
  • Why do conservatives hate our environment so much?

    Best answer: I don't think they do, I'm sure they'd love to have as pristine an environment as much as anyone else. However, many feel that making money is more important than anything else. They also suffer from a very large disconnect between their rhetoric (which they LOVE) and objective reality. If objective... show more
    Best answer: I don't think they do, I'm sure they'd love to have as pristine an environment as much as anyone else.

    However, many feel that making money is more important than anything else. They also suffer from a very large disconnect between their rhetoric (which they LOVE) and objective reality. If objective reality doesn't agree with their ideas, it must be because scientists are faking the temperatures, or economists are faking job numbers, or whatever.
    15 answers · 4 days ago
  • When Oil runs up, and we just NEED to go electrical, will the Earth cool down?

    Or will it be too late by the time oil is dried up? Imagine, no more CO2 from burning petrol, kerosene or diesel into the air, but will this fact, which will happen in roughly 50 years but enough to revers the climate change we cause so far, the warming of the Earth, will it reverse? Or will the open ocean of the... show more
    Or will it be too late by the time oil is dried up? Imagine, no more CO2 from burning petrol, kerosene or diesel into the air, but will this fact, which will happen in roughly 50 years but enough to revers the climate change we cause so far, the warming of the Earth, will it reverse? Or will the open ocean of the North Pole collect so much heat (because lack of ice and lack of reflection) keep warming up the Earth further?
    13 answers · 5 days ago
  • So let me get this straight: Libtards seriously think man is responsible for climate change?

    Best answer: I am not a Libtard not a republican either.
    My View on climate change, Is Man has an effect on the climate, but I am very skeptical about the magnitude of that effect.
    If by climate change you mean global warming, well great lets have some more.
    Best answer: I am not a Libtard not a republican either.
    My View on climate change, Is Man has an effect on the climate, but I am very skeptical about the magnitude of that effect.
    If by climate change you mean global warming, well great lets have some more.
    9 answers · 3 days ago
  • Skeptics: if you agree that this formula debunks the greenhouse effect ... ?

    Best answer: From the ideal gas law, PV = nRT T = P / (R x p/n) P = R*T*p/n P = R*T * rho/n = R*T * n/V rho/n = n/V rho * V = n^2 kg/m^3 * m^3 = n^2 kg = n^2 kg ≠ n^2 = (kg/mol)^2 Non-skeptical me, I'll be back... Continuing my inspection of the equation using unit analysis which is important: In the basic ideal gas law,... show more
    Best answer: From the ideal gas law, PV = nRT
    T = P / (R x p/n)
    P = R*T*p/n
    P = R*T * rho/n = R*T * n/V
    rho/n = n/V
    rho * V = n^2
    kg/m^3 * m^3 = n^2
    kg = n^2
    kg ≠ n^2 = (kg/mol)^2

    Non-skeptical me, I'll be back...

    Continuing my inspection of the equation using unit analysis which is important: In the basic ideal gas law, PV=nRT, n is usually given in moles. but in the given equation n=kg/mol. The two equations are not equal unless we have n=kg/mol and the left side and n=mol on the right:

    rho/n = n/V
    (kg/m^3) / (kg/mol) = n/V
    or
    mol/V = mol/V

    Now using the ideal gas law
    n = [1.225/0.02897] mol / V
    PV = nRT
    T = P/(n/V)/R
    T ≈ 288 K

    But, all this is meaningless with regard to the 33K increase over 255K due to the atmospheric effect!
    I'll be back...

    The fallacy of using scientific analysis to educate a propagandist:

    Calling some of these contributors skeptics is actually a complement. A better phrase might be bait and switcher. The bait is usually a link followed by a short ambiguous description. While we work on the bait, they switch, and the process repeats over and over. They never publish anything in this forum that approaches scientific analysis of links or papers, scientific or otherwise. They just bait, switch, and watch us, or so they think, chase those chickens around the barnyard – clearly immoral, YES?. Solar Wind is an excellent bait-switcher. I'll try to say something positive about Solar Wind before this question closes :)

    I'm busy, but again. I'll be back...

    This question is addressed to skeptics, but so far, other than opinion, I don't see any debunking that could be called scientific. The ideal gas law is based on kinetic theory which is fine, but, skeptics, try to use it to debunk the atmospheric effect; let's see something more than opinion and silly cartoons.

    Here's another challenge created by me for skeptics; I'm not giving away any secrets of the universe although I can imagine someone putting together a paper or web page claiming that gravity debunks the greenhouse effect! Here's a real equation, created by me (or Newton?).

    T = m*g / (R*n*A)

    It correctly gives Earth's mean temperature; come on skeptics (and Solar Wind) think, have fun.

    Later...
    12 answers · 6 days ago
  • With Climate Change happening will Southern Canada, Northeast U.S, and Midwest U.S be Subtropical by 2100?

    Best answer: It doesn't matter- you'll be dead.
    Best answer: It doesn't matter- you'll be dead.
    7 answers · 3 days ago
  • Climate change is real, so why deny it?

    Best answer: Good question. Most people deny it for political reasons. They love big oil. Also, they don t want to make any sacrifices, like driving less.
    Best answer: Good question. Most people deny it for political reasons. They love big oil. Also, they don t want to make any sacrifices, like driving less.
    22 answers · 1 week ago