More Leftist Logic

Scientists and activists and politicians are coming up with plans to try to reduce the effects of human activity on climate change, the problem is conservatives refuse to listen because they don't want to admit there is a problem

Brother it's been 60 f**king degrees in Denver for the last week
That is not normal
Climate change is real, and it is a complicated issue. We cannot pinpoint the exact effects it'll have but what we can pinpoint is what causes it
Here's the run down on how it works: UV light from the sun makes its way into the earth’s atmosphere which provides the planet with energy. The rays that do not get used up(about 30 percent) are reflected back into space as heat. But some of these waves collide with particles in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide and methane which absorb the heat and traps it in the earth’s atmosphere. So if more gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane are released into the atmosphere by human activity, more heat is trapped by those gasses, therefore warming the planet at a higher rate. Hope this helps:)

It's very simple the sun is burning hotter. All stars burn hotter as they age, the problem for leftists is you can't regulate the Sun so you blame man and regulate every aspect of his existence

Socialist arrogance. More government can fix everything, including the weather.

Too bad the actual experts don't agree with you

Still missing the point, Cheesy. What have leftist policies done to make anything better? They come up with stupid solutions that make energy more expensive and do nothing about CO2 emissions. How does mandating EVs do anything? What does blowing up dams and closing nuclear plants do? Why do people keep voting for these morons?

"Experts say" two words that ooze arrogance and elitism

That would take longer than the climate takes to shift to an ice age

Which is another question altogether, why the periodic ice ages that happen about every 32,000 yrs like clockwork? It has to do with the Earth's angle toward the sun where a few degrees angle more or less causes either an ice age or a period of warming, but again, you can't regulate the Earth same as you can't regulate the sun, so it's easier and more lucrative to government to regulate man and every aspect of his existence.

As you said, that takes 32000 years. Why are the temperatures going this high in a 32000 year cycle?

we've only been keeping records for the last 100 years or so, and I don't consider an average one or two degree difference a "spike". Riddle me this batman: I do refrigeration, I've taught it, up until 1850 or so people would cut ice from frozen ponds in winter and store it in icehouses to keep through summer and people would buy blocks of ice to put in thier iceboxes to keep thier food cool.

There was an abnormally warm winter that came along not allowing the ponds to freeze over which caused a shortage of ice available to use which forced the creation of mechanical refrigeration.

What caused the abnormally warm winter before the industrial age had even started?

a fluke, one that did not span multiple years. And for your first point, 1/100>50/32000

So we should have just rode it out, thereby never creating freon, which would have never "created" an ozone hole, and never started the chain reaction of "global warming"??

Fun fact: ozone is created daily by sunlight, at night there is very little ozone overhead, meaning a place like antarctica that is dark 6 months of the year would have an "ozone hole", especially when even in antarctic summer where it is light for 6 months it would still be weak, seeing as the light reaching it is at a glancing angle, not directly on like at the equator.

It would be weak, not annihilated

Average increase in the Sun's temperature is something that stretches over millions of years, not decades or centuries.

There's a theory that I'm looking for that I ran into some years ago about solar activity like sunspots and ionized particles or something like that affecting cloud formation on Earth which would in turn affect the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth's surface. The theory suggests the reverse has been going on therefore less cloud formation and thus more sunlight reaching the surface and therefore hotter temperatures.

Sounds real blurry the way I'm putting it, that's why I'm looking for the theory and it ain't that easy because I don't know the right words to use and the current climate fad basically shoves it into the fringes. So it isn't exactly the first thing that's going to turn up in a Google.

There are other factors as well and such as the continued reduction of forest cover and increase in open areas for farmland as well as increasingly urbanized human zones which trap more sun and thus produce more heat. Since temperature measurements tend to be near where people live for obvious reasons, the readings are going to be higher.

For example, there are temperature-related planting zones referred to in gardening. New York City should be a Zone 6, at par with much of Pennsylvania, but instead it's Zone 7 which averages 10 to 15° higher, particularly during the winter. So New York City is 10 to 15 degrees hotter than it should be just because of all the tar and concrete and reduced forest cover.

Tokyo would be very equivalent of a Zone 7 if it wasn't for the city, but being a highly urbanized area with exceedingly far less parkland than other cities might have, it's actually warm enough to grow bananas.

So those are two examples where increasing spreading and density of human habitation has caused increases in local temperatures.

I'm tired, I have a bit of a headache, and I'm not making sense.

I know there is plenty that works into the rise in global temps and that the sun could be just one factor in it, I agree that since the industrial age started CO2 in the atmosphere has increased but that is oxygen to trees and plants, we should be more worried about clear cutting of forests than eliminating the internal combustion engine.

But as for the timing of things and that it'll be another billion years before the sun becomes an issue, it's my assertion that in thier calculations, the "experts" could have forgotten to "carry the one", which does happen, but they're too arrogant to admit it.

Are you high?

Sure, climate change is real. The climate is always changing. It is clear to me that politicians and activists are pimping out climate change for power and money. They don't have any practical plan, but to scare people. Many times, their ideas make things worse. Look at Germany. They are screwed because of their green energy policy. They are burning more coal than ever because they closed their nuclear plants.

when scientists talk about climate change, they aren't talking about the normal change of the climate over long periods of time, they're talking about an increase in average global temperatures which humans are contributing to by doing things like burning fossil fuels. If you knew anything about the issue, you wouldn't be wrong all the time.

Can you show a graph of the global average temperature since the Cambrian explosion or further?

It's also been colder than normal for the last couple of months here in New York and the rest of the Northeast. A lot colder.

That's why the limiting term of global warming was switched to the all encompassing "climate change".