RobertV2 wrote:
You reduce your credibility by your use of words "lefties" and "evil". It makes it harder to reply cleanly to you. It looks like your side of the discussion is not made in good faith. I understand there's some humor involved, and yet even in this thread some of the others are treating the topic somewhat seriously.
Whoever wants to understand Global Warming would do well to distinguish between _climate_ and _weather_. Your original post, while possibly meant lightly as a joke, appears to conflate climate and weather as though they were the same thing. This wrong conflation has been going on in public discourse for years, as with the congressman trying to make a point about climate change by exhibiting a snowball, and as with "the former guy" (former president Trump) not taking climate change seriously. Their wrong conflations of weather and climate look silly, and yet a lot of people really don't seem to understand the distinction. Weather is about day-to-day phenomena, such as whether it's raining today or not, or hotter or colder today. Climate is about longer-term trends.
In answer to your title question: "Can someone tell me just when Global Warming will kick in ?": It already has. Global ice is melting too rapidly; sea levels are already rising too rapidly; extreme weather events (hot, cold, wet, & dry events) (climate change disrupts normal weather patterns) are too rapidly becoming too extreme and too frequent. I don't have any precise date (supposing I were to pretend that you really wanted to know), but I would say offhand that, sometime between about 4 years ago and now, the effects of global warming began to become fairly obvious to tens of millions of people, including some in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S. (where people died in an unusual heat wave several months ago) and in some low-lying island nations and in some coastal areas such as in Vietnam (where very-low-elevation farming, by the coast, is important), and to the fewer number of people who study images of earth photographed from space.
Of course climate change over long periods of time is normal; the problem is that the climate change that's happening nowadays is happening much more rapidly than normal, such that normal adaptations are insufficient. In my opinion, to most of us, in our day-to-day lives, it doesn't _look_ like a really terrible disaster yet (for example, here in California, while we do get more wildfires and smoke than we used to, so far the vast majority of us have been able to live through it and still live normal lives). But for millions of others (in some of the places I mentioned above) the disaster is already more proximate and appears as a more urgent matter already.
And the problems are accelerating.
Let's pretend for a moment that all of "science" is worthless and everybody ignores it. Then, we in California would still notice that we get more fires and smoke than we used to, and we'd be wondering why that's happening. And a lot of people in the Pacific Northwest would be wondering why they got such an unusually deadly heat wave last year; it would be hard to discount it as normal variability. And the Vietnamese coastal farmers can't help but notice that their farming doesn't work the same way it used to because of salinity from the rising ocean getting into their farmlands. All these things have been becoming obvious during the past few years (and -- dipping back into "the science" for a moment -- all stem from climate change, which you'll probably know after about three more years pass -- melting polar ice and melting permafrost have effects that reinforce the warming trend, and the melting ice makes a significant difference in the sea level, having dramatic effects on some low-lying island nations and some coastal areas on mainlands).
You reduce your credibility by your use of words &... (
show quote)
Climate change is an on going thing. So who is to say it's happening faster then it should. Or how long the current trend will last. Global warming may already be over. But being environmentally friendly is a good thing and conserving our resources can be beneficial for future generations. If governments actually thought global warming was a real problem do you think they would let thousands acres of the rain forests burn every week? Forests eat twice as much CO2 as they produce so why would they cut down the one thing that can save us from the threat of global warming?
Nuclear energy has it's pros and cons but should never be built near an ocean as Fukushima has taught us. They almost declared the Pacific ocean a dead ocean and are still monitoring radiation in fish that are cought there . Speaking of oceans, wave farms would produce endless energy 24/7 all year long.. much more efficient then wind farms and more reliable then solar. Global warming doesn't have to be real to get us thinking about alternate sustainable energy while protecting the environment and that's a good thing.