-
Climate Denial
Another nail in the coffin. Or is the National Research Counsel of the National Academies also in on the international conspiracy to foist a fraud so that scientists can steal grant money for imaginary investigations?
http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Americas-Climate-Choices/12781
Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks to humans and the environment. These risks indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts.
CLIMATE CHANGE is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.
So says in response to a request from Congress the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the countrys preeminent institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers.
In a report titled Americas Climate Choices, a panel of scientific and policy experts also concludes that the risks of inaction far outweigh the risks or disadvantages of action . And the most sensible and urgently needed action, the panel says, is to put a rising price on carbon emissions, by means of a tax or cap-and-trade system. That would encourage innovation, research and a gradual shift away from the use of energy sources (oil, gas and coal) that are endangering the world.
[b]None of this should come as a surprise. None of this is news. But it is newsworthy, sadly, because the Republican Party, and therefore the U.S. government, have moved so far from reality and responsibility in their approach to climate change[/b].
[b]Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation.[/b]
Climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three. And their recalcitrance is dangerous, the report makes clear, because the longer the nation waits to respond to climate change, the more catastrophic the planetary damage is likely to be and the more drastic the needed response.
-
966 Replies
-
Not so fast Frumi. Leading scientists are now questioning the validity of the AGW data.
David Evans, a leading climate scientist in Australia said the following:
“The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic”.
Soiinds to me like another liberal pillar is on weak footing. Stay tuned for the mea culpas.
-
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
Not so fast Frumi. Leading scientists are now questioning the validity of the AGW data.
David Evans, a leading climate scientist in Australia said the following:
“The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic”.
Soiinds to me like another liberal pillar is on weak footing. Stay tuned for the mea culpas.
aldadoc, you are clutching a pretty flimsy argument in that citation.
First of all, moist air is not the only cause for global warming. ALL carbon particles have a higher specific heat than oxygen/nitrogen, CO2 undergoes various reactions in to form higher order molecules, those more complex carbon chains have a higher specific heat than CO2, and such particles will cause the ambient temperature to rise as it is exposed to the sun. This rise in ambient temperature has an effect of increasing the evaporation rate over a body of water and does not require that such changes be measurable at an altitude of 10km above the planet’s surface. Having said that, there is plenty of evidence from recent storm seasons which indicate that warmer water is causing greater storm season intensities (e.g., the warmer Gulf amplifying the intensity of storms like Katrina, etc.), is causing a melting of polar/glacial ice, is causing a measurable elevation in sea, and the resulting increased weight of the oceans is causing more crust instabilities (e.g., increased frequencies of earthquakes and tsunamis). Your citation does not take issue with the measurable increase in carbon particulate matter in the environment and the increase in specific heat such particulate density is causing in the layer between storm clouds and the planet’s surface.
Second, an anthropogenic cause is only one possibility. Another likely cause is that the Earth undergoes natural cycles in atmospheric temperatures and it does so approx. every 12-15k years. At least that’s what the ice age records seem to show. Not coincidentally, based on previous ice age cycles, right now is when we would expect a warming phase.
Third, your citation makes a claim that anthropomorphic warming requires there to be a measurable increase in moisture up to the 10 km mark in our atmosphere. However, you really only need the moist air between the storm cloud layer and the planet’s surface. As the density of moist air increases, the atmosphere becomes heavier, and so it’s the increased atmospheric “density gradient” and not the “thickness” of the moisture that’s important. The weather balloon experiments that were summarized in your citation represent a school of thought that depends on a false pretense contrived by global warming antagonists specifically because of their predisposition to “disprove” such warming. Their insistence that moisture must reach such high altitudes is unwarranted. What your citation did not assess was the trending in the weight of a column of atmosphere or indeed its total specific heat regardless of the thickness of the moisture layer, per se.
And why does your citation specifically address “anthropomorphic” vs. global warming in general? [i]What difference does it make[/i] whether climate change is natural or man-made (as if man was separate and apart from nature!)?
Your citation makes a silly statement: [b][i]”If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory”[/i][/b]. In fact, such a statement is about as [u]un[/u]scientific as one can get. First of all, it leaves no room for the possibility that one or more [i]premises[/i] to the theory might be incorrect (e.g., that moisture must necessarily reach the 10km altitude before surface warming can occur), or that the measurement paradigm is relevant vs. other tests that are more appropriate to the problem (e.g., measuring atmospheric density gradients and specific heat of a column of atmosphere and not just the moisture at 2-10km above the surface (most of the Earth’s weather occurs [i]below[/i] 2km). In fact, when you consider all of the other evidence of warming, if any theory should be scrapped, it’s the one promoted in your citation – that you must be able to measure increased moisture at 10km before you can call it anthropomorphic!
There is nothing in your citation that disproves that global warming is a real phenomenon. The citation simply insists that the ONLY indicator of anthropomorphic warming is an increase in moisture at 10km above sea level, and since no increase in moisture has been detected at that altitude, AWG, therefore, is bogus. This simply is not a valid scientific assessment of global warming.
-
“Leading scientists?” as in “a scientist” refutes 99 others & backs up none of his statements. David Evans can always write to the National Academy of Science & collectively call them liars. What peer-reviews has this “scientist” published on the subject of climate change? None that I know of. Allegedly his background is in electrical engineering. From 1999 to 2006 he worked for Australian Greenhouse Office to design a carbon accounting system to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol. He is not a climate modeler.
Stop cherry-picking people who support your particular views. The vast consensus – published & unpublished – is that change exists & that some or most of its cause is anthropogenic. Real scientists have to go through a peer-review process. David Evans has never done that.
-
“Climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three.”
It looks like willfully ignorant is the most likely.
-
ORIGINAL: Back in the Saddle
“Climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three.”
It looks like willfully ignorant is the most likely.
Well, climate change believers sometimes prefer to be “willfully ignorant” too, especially when it comes willfully ignoring the unsubstantiated claims of the deniers, such as the citation posted by aldadoc!
-
And you are basing your conclusions on East Anglia data? Jeez, some people will believe anything!
I find the skeptics a lot more believable than the discredited East Anglia data, upon which a large portion of the AGW assumptions are based. Human effects on climate are negligible. Time will tell who is right.-
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
Human effects on climate are negligible.
And this is based on what & how?
-
ORIGINAL: Frumious
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
Human effects on climate are negligible.
And this is based on what & how?
Common sense, and articles like this:
[link=http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html]http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html[/link]-
At one time there were so many buffalo there was no possible way they could ever be in danger of extinction. The passenger pigeon populations was so numerous that, “One sighting in 1866 in southern Ontario was described as being 1 mile wide, 300 miles long, and taking 14 hours to pass a single point with number estimates in excess of 3.5 billion birds in the flock,” and therefore never in danger of extinction.
The buffalo was almost hunted to extinction. The passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction. Now we have global over-fishing of many species.
But there is no possible way man could ever have any sort of impact on the globe? That’s a joke.
How many tons of carbon are burned in a day, a year, since the industrial Revolution? But it’s not possible that could have any measurable effect.
As for your site, it is about as scientific as “Creation Science.”
-
-
-
and medical imaging is a hoax too aye? I mean, why bother believing anything aldadoc? why bother believing the 99% of radiologists who say a lateral peaking hemidiaphragm suggests a subpulmonic effusion? I’d like to know what you base your beliefs on??
-
Obviously, aldadoc’s beliefs are reactive and reflexively ideological: first he checks to see what the Dems believe, then he believes the opposite no matter how unscientific, illogical, and harmful that alternative might be.
The Dems are simply wrong, early and always. No proof required. No amount of data and logic can change it. It is an immutable fact given to us by God. To side with the Dems is to side with Satan.
Need I go on?
-
Hi ther, Communist Buddies! Thout I’d jus jump in here for your amusemnt.
Found an interestin article form 8 years ago tht pretty nicly shows jus why you Communists have your collecitive panties in a wad over this climate cr@p….
[link=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/why_liberals_fear_global_warmi.html]http://www.realclearpolit…fear_global_warmi.html[/link]
If yur too lazy to opn it…heres the list:
[blockquote] — The Left is prone to hysteria. The belief that global warming will destroy the world is but one of many hysterical notions held on the Left.— The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news sources report something, it is true. If the cover of Time magazine says, “Global Warming: Be Worried, Very Worried,” liberals get worried, very worried, about global warming.
— The Left believes in experts.
— People who don’t confront the greatest evils will confront far lesser ones. ……..The Right tends to fight human evil such as communism and Islamic totalitarianism. The Left avoids confronting such evils and concentrates its attention instead on socioeconomic inequality, environmental problems and capitalism. Global warming meets all three of these criteria of evil. By burning fossil fuels, rich countries pollute more, the environment is being despoiled and big business increases its profits.
— The Left is far more likely to revere, even worship, nature. A threat to the environment is regarded by many on the Left as a threat to what is most sacred to them, and therefore deemed to be the greatest threat humanity faces. The cover of Vanity Fair’s recent “Special Green Issue” declared: “A Graver Threat Than Terrorism: Global Warming.” Conservatives, more concerned with human evil, hold the very opposite view: Islamic terror is a far graver threat than global warming.
— Leftists tend to fear dying more. That is one reason they are more exercised about our waging war against evil than about the evils committed by those we fight. The number of Iraqis and others Saddam Hussein murdered troubles the Left considerably less than even the remote possibility than they may one day die of global warming (or secondhand smoke).
[/blockquote] Nothin much has changed since 2006. You Communists whine and whne and whine and whine bou’t climate change, like you do about everything that gets your collective pantys in a wad (get it! Collectve!!! All non-communists will understand), and then you want everyne else to suffer to fix it.
Do I have to go thr this yet again? I’ll do it for the few non-Communists that come by to look at what passes for discussion round here. Even if all yu scared little girls sold your SUVs ad bought Priapuses, you woul’dnt change a dam thing. YOu just are going along with your Mrxist masters who want to destroy the economy of the United States. THAT is what this is about. Shut down all industry, invest in tech that mostly dont’ work (Tesla bein one of the few very expensive exseptions) all so you little girls can FEEL BETTER tht the world won’t end tomorrow.
When most scientists (I use the wrd loosely) are paid by the burocrats who are mostly leftist and want to destroy industry and bring bout their beloved one-world govenrmnet, what do you THINK they are going to say? Lessee…I can tell the TRUTH, that we DON”T KNOW if humans cn even begin to influence wearrhthr pattens that have been doin quite a lot of fuctuation for the last zillion years and pi$$ off those who pay me, or I can go with the flow. Duh.
Your good buddies in the other Communist cuntries (we arent there yet, no thanks to people like you) are cr@pping up the environment a lot more than your worst nightmare about anythng here, but I dont here any whining about that. Tells me just what the agenda REALLY is. All you want to do is whine about the mpendin destruction of the eartth and how stoooooopid th “denires” are. Last time we had this talk only Fumerous said he rides his trike to work. The rest of you are just a buch of whiners who want ME to put my money and lifestyle where YOUr mouth is so YOu can feel good about savin Gaia.
If youll excuse me, I’m now going to drive my Escalade to the arport and get in my private 747 and dump about 117 tons of carban over Lux’s house. Oh wait, sorry, thought I was your High Priest Algore for a second.-
A few years later and this thread looks the same as it started. I’m shocked!
I’m open minded, which to a few on this thread apparently means something between a skeptic and a moron. Or a greedy moron. Something like that.
I believe the climate is changing. Shock! The climate tends to do that.
I think it is likely we have contributed to the recent period of change, from a tiny bit to a lot. Shock! Just how much is very difficult to tease out, but I’m willing to grant that our part is non-trivial.
I have no idea whether the changes that may occur are a net disaster for humanity, net neutral, or net positive. We could be wiped out by cataclysm, or live in a fertile new eden. I’m willing to believe it’s something closer to neutral, there will be some changes, we will adapt, mostly easily, in a few ways perhaps painfully. I don’t think any of the tenured climatologists know this any better than I do.
I have no idea whether we we could effect a significant change on the global climate in a desired direction even if as a population we decided to. I’m not sure any scientist really knows this, beyond the assumption that our pollution/emissions is the cause, thus stopping that is the fix at least for the short term. I don’t believe there are any reliable predictions of what stopping now would do, as far as timeline required to effect significant change.
I do know that the proposals so far to reverse or slow the global warming disaster we are presumed to be bringing down on our heads, such as drastically cutting emissions, has huge, HUGE, financial considerations. Almost beyond conceivable financial considerations. I think it is unwise to sink until zillions into trying to effect a change now about a process we barely understand. That money should be invested into long term technologies that can effect change later in a much more efficient manner, when we have a better understanding, with less disruption of global economy, and with spin-off benefits new technologies always do. I’m talking about pouring money into forward thinking energy solutions, such as fusion. Look at ways to seriously sequester carbon efficiently. Develop the technologies needed to move our transportation industry towards electric, fuel cells, hydrogen etc.
And for the statement made earlier about “trust us, it’s good for you” being applied to southerners voting against entitlements that would help them… I wonder if you think the same of working class and/or wealthy democrats who align with policymakers who would raise their taxes and slash their incomes?
-
Quote from rhosch
I wonder if you think the same of working class and/or wealthy democrats who align with policymakers who would raise their taxes and slash their incomes?
I have voted for politicians that I knew would end up raising my taxes, and I did that because I thought the social programs that would be funded by such tax increases would help the needy. But when those people on food stamps and other “entitlements” cheered Romney for wanting to cut back those progams, those people weren’t thinking he was going to cut THEIR ability to participate in those programs. Big difference. Rather, those people seemed to think he would only cut the “entitlements” to Democrats.
But that’s not really related to climate denial.
Regarding climate change, are you really trying to claim that the vast majority of climate scientists say AGW is really happening without having data to back up those claims?! Do you really believe that’s how science works?
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from rhosch
I wonder if you think the same of working class and/or wealthy democrats who align with policymakers who would raise their taxes and slash their incomes?
I have voted for politicians that I knew would end up raising my taxes,
Ditto.
There is no free ride, contrary to what the Republicans offer. You have to pay for what you have already borrowed. You have to pay for infrastructure. You have to pay for institutions.
You have to pay for the society you want to have. If the free market created these things of itself with no effort then everyone would have at least good if not all uniformly excellent societies with infrastructures and institutions, especially places where there is no “government interference,” like Somalia. There would be nothing unique about the US.
You have to pay for wars that you engage in.
So absolutely yes, I would vote for politicians who tell me we have to pay for building and maintaining all this structure. It is more honest than the Republicans have been. -
Quote from Lux
Quote from rhosch
I wonder if you think the same of working class and/or wealthy democrats who align with policymakers who would raise their taxes and slash their incomes?
I have voted for politicians that I knew would end up raising my taxes, and I did that because I thought the social programs that would be funded by such tax increases would help the needy. But when those people on food stamps and other “entitlements” cheered Romney for wanting to cut back those progams, those people weren’t thinking he was going to cut THEIR ability to participate in those programs. Big difference. Rather, those people seemed to think he would only cut the “entitlements” to Democrats.
Do you believe it possible for a poor person to rationally have a conservative mindset? To actually believe less regulation and removal of a bandaid might be in their best long term interest? Or are those the nutso people you refer to?
Regarding climate change, are you really trying to claim that the vast majority of climate scientists say AGW is really happening without having data to back up those claims?! Do you really believe that’s how science works?
If I was trying to claim that, I would come out and say that clearly. Just like I clearly laid out above what I actually think. And what is this science mumbojumbo you speak of? Seems rational discussion just isn’t possible on this topic. I tried, and get word twisting and petty insults as a response. Nice job.
-
Quote from rhosch
Quote from Lux
Quote from rhosch
I wonder if you think the same of working class and/or wealthy democrats who align with policymakers who would raise their taxes and slash their incomes?
I have voted for politicians that I knew would end up raising my taxes, and I did that because I thought the social programs that would be funded by such tax increases would help the needy. But when those people on food stamps and other “entitlements” cheered Romney for wanting to cut back those progams, those people weren’t thinking he was going to cut THEIR ability to participate in those programs. Big difference. Rather, those people seemed to think he would only cut the “entitlements” to Democrats.
Do you believe it possible for a poor person to rationally have a conservative mindset? To actually believe less regulation and removal of a bandaid might be in their best long term interest? Or are those the nutso people you refer to?
The most accurate and short answer is “yes, but”
But what is a conservative mindset 1st of all?
Removal of regulations? In what degree and what examples?
Bandaid? Again, examples to illustrate your statement. It is too vague and therefore cannot be answered adequately & opens the answer up to easy criticism. What real question would I or Lux be answering? What is the foundation of the questions especially in light of “bandaid?”
Also, are conservatives hostile to poor people? The rhetoric by the Right and Romney’s campaign would indicate a definite “yes!” In this light does it make sense for a poor person to be conservative? Very possibly it does not.
What is a conservative poor person giving up to be a “true conservative,” direct assistance aside. Public education? Public health care including Medicaid? Do you have examples of poor being better off with conservative “solutions?” And what are these conservative solutions? Examples? -
Quote from Frumious
The most accurate and short answer is “yes, but”
But what is a conservative mindset 1st of all?….
It is too vague and therefore cannot be answered adequately & opens the answer up to easy criticism. What real question would I or Lux be answering?
OK, I’ll make it simple. I found the sentiment amusing that the only people voting “clearly” not in their best interests who are nuts are poor people. Wealthy people “clearly” not voting in their best interests are ok since they are enlightened I suppose. Look, the sentiment was equally or more vague than my questions about it. I found it amusing. That people who don’t see the world as you do are crazy, that is. That’s why I’ve had such a hard time having a rational discussion with you. -
Quote from rhosch
Quote from Lux
Quote from rhosch
I wonder if you think the same of working class and/or wealthy democrats who align with policymakers who would raise their taxes and slash their incomes?
I have voted for politicians that I knew would end up raising my taxes, and I did that because I thought the social programs that would be funded by such tax increases would help the needy. But when those people on food stamps and other “entitlements” cheered Romney for wanting to cut back those progams, those people weren’t thinking he was going to cut THEIR ability to participate in those programs. Big difference. Rather, those people seemed to think he would only cut the “entitlements” to Democrats.
Do you believe it possible for a poor person to rationally have a conservative mindset? To actually believe less regulation and removal of a bandaid might be in their best long term interest? Or are those the nutso people you refer to?
Regarding climate change, are you really trying to claim that the vast majority of climate scientists say AGW is really happening without having data to back up those claims?! Do you really believe that’s how science works?
If I was trying to claim that, I would come out and say that clearly. Just like I clearly laid out above what I actually think. And what is this science mumbojumbo you speak of? Seems rational discussion just isn’t possible on this topic. I tried, and get word twisting and petty insults as a response. Nice job.
I am having a hard time taking your posts seriously.
First, I’d like to know how you define “conservative mindset”. I do not consider Romney to be a true fiscal conservative when he has no problem socking his money in a foreign bank instead of acknowledging his conservative duty to pay taxes back into the US economy. Avoiding taxes is NOT a conservative mindset. It’s fiscal hypocrisy because it denies that the source of wealth among the rich is the middle class and that a truly fiscally responsible nation does what it can to provide food, shelter, and healthcare for the poor, sick, and elderly. This has been true for every conservative President except Bush who didn’t even acknowledge our fiscal responsibility to pay for wars that we started.
And please feel free or read the earlier pages of this discussion and other related discussions for the “science mumbojumbo” (the use of such derogatory words CLEARLY identifies who among us are unable to carry out a “rational discussion”). The key is to ignore reports of long term data that ends many decades ago. We need to consider data that includes the most recent century, such as here,
[link]http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/fb.ashx?m=415872[/link]
and also here,
[link]http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/fb.ashx?m=415906[/link]
-
Quote from Lux
I am having a hard time taking your posts seriously.
I noticed.
“science mumbojumbo” (the use of such derogatory words CLEARLY identifies who among us are unable to carry out a “rational discussion”).
Use of that word was tongue-in-cheek. A response to the insinuation by you that anyone who doesn’t agree with you (beyond question, it seems, is the requirement) doesn’t understand science. Maybe Frumious is right and I have a serious problem with nuance. Sorry the attempt was lost on you.
-
Quote from rhosch
“science mumbojumbo” (the use of such derogatory words CLEARLY identifies who among us are unable to carry out a “rational discussion”).
Use of that word was tongue-in-cheek. A response to the insinuation by you that anyone who doesn’t agree with you (beyond question, it seems, is the requirement) doesn’t understand science. Maybe Frumious is right and I have a serious problem with nuance. Sorry the attempt was lost on you.
I don’t get the “tongue-in-cheek” reference. What was the target of your sarcasm if not a subliminal sign of “implied truth”? I made no implication that anyone who doesn’t agree with me doesn’t understand science. You simply erroneously inferred that based on your own bias filter. Plenty of people disagree with me about stocks, religion, sports, food, etc., and I never tell them they’re wrong. But opinion is a far cry from science. The latter usually is indeed one-sided.
So yes, I believe you do [i]”have a serious problem with nuance”. [/i]By definition, most people get into a debate because they disagree, but that does not automatically mean that “anyone who doesn’t agree” with me must be wrong. I like apples and if you don’t like apples we certainly engage in a debate about the attributes of apples, but you are not necessarily “wrong” about apples just because you disagree with me. But I also believe the earth revolves around the sun, and if you disagree, then you are indeed indisputably wrong. Not just because you disagree with me, but because you disagree with the facts.
From my perspective, it’s not that you don’t understand the science, it’s that you don’t understand the scientific principle of preponderance and breadth of evidence. You seem to take isolated, incomplete, local weather phenomenon and generalize it to compete with more global data. In fact, you seem incurious about looking up the preponderance of evidence in the first place. You seem pretty smart, but you also seem lazy, and so you come across as forming an uninformed opinion and then require the rest of us to feed you with data as you sit there in your virtual throne.
At least that’s what I infer from your posts so far. -
See its simple…just pass a law against the tides rising and all will be fine
The state had detailed maps to illustrate this claim and was developing a [link=http://irisk.nc.gov/irisk/Program.aspx]Web site [/link]where people could check by street address to see if their property was doomed. There was no talk of salvation, no plan to hold back the tide. The 39-inch forecast was a death sentence, Kelly said, for ever trying to sell your house.
So Kelly, a lobbyist for Realtors and home builders on the Outer Banks, resolved to prove the forecast wrong. And thus began one of the nations most notorious battles over climate change.
Coastal residents joined forces with climate skeptics to attack the science of global warming and persuade North Carolinas Republican-controlled legislature to deep-six the 39-inch projection, which had been advanced under the outgoing Democratic governor. Now, the state is working on a new forecast that will look only 30 years out and therefore show the seas rising by no more than eight inches.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ncs-outer-banks-got-a-scary-forecast-about-climate-change-so/2014/06/24/0042cf96-f6f3-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html?tid=trending_strip_1]http://www.washingtonpost…l?tid=trending_strip_1[/link]
-
So they’re now they’re “battling climate change” by proposing what they consider to be a more optimistic scenario where the sea will “only” rise a full EIGHT INCHES in only 30 years…and they consider that good news?!
Well that’s just hilarious.
It reminds me of Blackburn’s silly rebuttal to Bill Nye that the CO2 levels are “only” 400ppm!!!
-
The 39 inches was a 100 year projection…but apparently that was too scary so they went with 8 inches in 30 years. And this says nothing about the millions already poured into beach re-nourishment from tides and storms.
-
Quote from Thor
See its simple…just pass a law against the tides rising and all will be fine
The state had detailed maps to illustrate this claim and was developing a [link=http://irisk.nc.gov/irisk/Program.aspx]Web site [/link]where people could check by street address to see if their property was doomed. There was no talk of salvation, no plan to hold back the tide. The 39-inch forecast was a death sentence, Kelly said, for ever trying to sell your house.
So Kelly, a lobbyist for Realtors and home builders on the Outer Banks, resolved to prove the forecast wrong. And thus began one of the nations most notorious battles over climate change.
Coastal residents joined forces with climate skeptics to attack the science of global warming and persuade North Carolinas Republican-controlled legislature to deep-six the 39-inch projection, which had been advanced under the outgoing Democratic governor. Now, the state is working on a new forecast that will look only 30 years out and therefore show the seas rising by no more than eight inches.[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ncs-outer-banks-got-a-scary-forecast-about-climate-change-so/2014/06/24/0042cf96-f6f3-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html?tid=trending_strip_1]http://www.washingtonpost…l?tid=trending_strip_1[/link]
Less fruitcake served in Virginia.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/opinion/climate-change-politics-north-carolina-virginia.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…carolina-virginia.html[/link]
By contrast in Virginia, a bipartisan group of political leaders is forthrightly talking about the problem. Last week, they [link=http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/bipartisan-group-discusses-threat-of-rising-sea-levels-in-hampton/article_e6733cb8-007f-11e4-8e90-0017a43b2370.html]met to consider[/link] ways to adapt the low-lying Hampton Roads region in southeastern Virginia to science-based predictions that the seas will rise at least a foot in 30 years and five feet or more by the end of the century.
The challenge is not theoretical, said Representative Scott Rigell, an Eastern Shore Republican.
-
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
Hi ther, Communist Buddies! Thout I’d jus jump in here for your amusemnt.
Found an interestin article form 8 years ago tht pretty nicly shows jus why you Communists have your collecitive panties in a wad over this climate cr@p….
[link=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/why_liberals_fear_global_warmi.html]http://www.realclearpolit…fear_global_warmi.html[/link]
If yur too lazy to opn it…heres the list:
How pompous of you to think that laziness is the only reason someone wouldn’t read your lunacy.
I’m not reading it simply because everything you write is pure trash.
Have a narcissistic day.
-
-
-
-
-
ORIGINAL: Lux
ORIGINAL: Back in the Saddle
“Climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three.”
It looks like willfully ignorant is the most likely.
Well, climate change believers sometimes prefer to be “willfully ignorant” too, especially when it comes willfully ignoring the unsubstantiated claims of the deniers, such as the citation posted by aldadoc!
Guilty as charged. Oh well, none of it will matter after Saturday, right? <-snort->
-
-
-
-
Aladoc, I love reading your posts. Just when I think you can’t be more ridiculous, you one up yourself.
Aladoc will go to the far corners of the earth to find some nutjob who supports his crazy theories. Literally, the far corners of the earth, as in the outback of Australia. Some 3rd rate scientist in Australia is supposed to convince us that climate change is a conspiracy? I don’t think so.
Keep them coming Aladoc, you continue to be a source of amusement.-
Quote from NY Doc
-
BBC scolded for “fair and balanced” coverage for crazy opinions.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/bbc-admonished-for-giving-climate-change-deniers-equal-air-time/]http://www.washingtonpost…eniers-equal-air-time/[/link]
A [link=http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/science_impartiality/trust_conclusions.pdf]progress report[/link] from an independent body, the [link=http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/who_we_are/]BBC Trust[/link], says Britains public broadcasting service shouldnt be giving equal air time to climate change deniers and others on the scientific fringe.
The report found the BBC remains prone to over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality that resulted in the news service giving undue attention to marginal opinion.
Since the review began in 2010, nearly 200 BBC senior staff were sent to workshops to learn what it means to cover science impartially. Andrew Miller, chairman of Parliaments science and technology select committee, said in a statement: The key point the workshops tried to impart is that impartiality in science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views, which may result in a false balance.
Given the high level of trust the public has in its coverage, it is disappointing that the BBC does not ensure all of its programmes and presenters reflect the actual state of climate science in its output, the report said, [link=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/02/mps-criticise-bbc-false-balance-climate-change-coverage]according to the Guardian[/link]. [b]The Today programme and other BBC News teams continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight.[/b]
-
[link=http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/09/greenpeace-co-founder-dr-patrick-moore-i-fear-a-global-cooling-rips-obama-for-hollow-climate-claims/]http://www.climatedepot.c…hollow-climate-claims/[/link]
[i]Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, warned I fear a global cooling, during his [link=http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/49713946]keynote address to the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change[/link] in Las Vegas on Tuesday. Moore, who left Greenpeace in 1986 because he felt it had become too radical, is the author of [link=http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Greenpeace-Dropout-Sensible-Environmentalist/dp/0986480827]Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist.[/link] (Watch climate conference [link=http://climateconference.heartland.org/]live here[/link])[/i]
[i]Moore noted that a cooling would adversely impact agriculture, and said: Lets hope for a little warming as opposed to a little cooling. I would rather it got a little warmer. (Watch Moore [link=http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/49713946]video here[/link] at the [link=http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/watch-the-heartland-conference-live/]Heartland Institute event[/link])[/i]
[i]Moore noted that the [link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/]U.S. is currently been cooling[/link] and noted that there has been no global warming for nearly 18 years. He also mocked the notion that everything is due to global warming.[/i]
[i]If it warms two degrees, hopefully more in Canada in the Northmaybe it would be a good thing if it did, Moore explained.[/i]
[i]Moore noted that carbon dioxide is a trace essential gas in the atmosphere and is not the control knob of the Earths climate.[/i]
[i]CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on earth, he noted.[/i]
[i]There are so many [climate] variables that we cant control and when you do an experiment you have to control all the variables except the one you are studying if you want to get a clean result. There are even variables we do not even understand that we cannot control, [/i]
[i]…[/i]The President seems to say it is sufficient to say the science is settled. It is hollow statement with no content, Moore noted.[/i]
[i]He also warned that the education system was failing children when it comes to climate change science.[/i]
[i]Change the way our kids are being taught about this subject because if we dont there will be a whole generation of people who are just blindly following this climate hysteria, Moore said.[/i]
[i]Our children are not taught logic, they are not taught what the scientific method is, and they are taught that carbon dioxide is pollution. They are told it is carbon now as if it were soot,[/i]
-
This is the same ol’ same ol’. It’s just stuff deliberately meant to confuse.
[b]If the Earth is cooling, why are the glaciers & Arctic/Antarctic ice still melting?[/b] Forbes needs to answer that. And Watt is a schlemiel who wants us to be the schlimazel. Except I ain’t having no soup.
[link=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php]http://earthobservatory.n…/giss_temperature2.php[/link] -
This image says it all. If things are getting cooler, why all these effects that are happening now that contradict the deniers’ claims?
[attachment=0]-
Any professional geologist will tell you that we are still warming from the last ice age, and it would be doing this with or without humans. But of course, normal CO2 levels have skyrocketed from about 250-285ppm over the past couple hundred years to over 400ppm over hte past few decades, and geologists are now predicting 800ppm by 2100.
-
Quote from Lux
Any professional geologist will tell you that we are still warming from the last ice age, and it would be doing this with or without humans.
I’m glad to see there is something between those Lux ears. I almost fell out of my chair. Of course there is warming since the last ice age, or we would still be in the ice age. The issue is, how much, if any of the warming is attributable to man and how much is normal climactic cycles for earth. Is there any contribution from man? if there is some minuscule contribution from man, is it really such a bad thing that we have to economically cripple ourselves over this global warming hysteria? Could it be that one or two degrees of warmth may be actually a good thing? How many of you enjoyed the last winter in the US?
You can not run a government through hysteria and emotion. That is OK for college campus adolescents, but not for running the country. Liberals need to check in their hormones at the door. I know this is very difficult for the emotive progressives. Listen before you speak. Think before you act. Reflect before you censor. Challenge premises. Examine motives. A little skepticism can save you a whole lot of trouble and backtracking down the line.-
A little skepticism can save you a whole lot of trouble and backtracking down the line.
—which would have been fine 10-15 years ago….at some point you also have to accept scientific viewpoints that have withstood time….or should we still be skeptical that gravity exists?-
Gravity is an illusion, a space/time warp.
-
Quote from aldadoc
Gravity is an illusion, a space/time warp.
Well, that “illusion” sure can be a bitch, nevertheless.
Was it the illusion of a space-time warp that caused the destruction on 9/11?
-
Science Daily published [link=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140702111003.htm]a story[/link] last week based on a study which was apparently made public last month. The study found that in order to maintain a temperature increase of no more than 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, the world would need to invest between $30 and $75 trillion in new energy technology between now and 2050.
Some of that money is already being spent, the study notes, so the total additional investment works out to about $800 billion per year. That comes to around $30 trillion by mid-century.
-
Change always brings disruption. Change is coming whether we do nothing or whether we do something. Change is still coming. And if you only look at one side of the equation it is always lopsided. But change is still coming whether you prepare for it or not.
Better to prepare.
-
-
-
-
-
Here’s a beaut, Alda, proving that global warming doesn’t exist because:
Brandon Smith, a Kentucky state senator who happens to own a[link=http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/kentucky-senator-on-global-warming-there-are-no-coal-mines-on-mars-20140708]few coal mines[/link], [link=http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2014/07/03/sen-brandon-smith-has-important-things-to-say-about-climate-change-mars/]argued[/link] last week that Mars disproves global warming on Earth because in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There are no factories on Mars that Im aware of. His bizarre argument, apparently, is that if Mars and Earth are the exact same temperature, then obviously carbon emissions don’t cause global warming.
Obviously a man up on the science.
-
-
-
-
-
Aladoc, I love reading your posts. Just when I think you can’t be more ridiculous, you one up yourself.
Aladoc will go to the far corners of the earth to find some nutjob who supports his crazy theories. Literally, the far corners of the earth, as in the outback of Australia. Some 3rd rate scientist in Australia is supposed to convince us that climate change is a conspiracy? I don’t think so.
Keep them coming Aladoc, you continue to be a source of amusement.
Quote from aldadoc
[link=http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/]http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/[/link]
Not so fast Frumi. Leading scientists are now questioning the validity of the AGW data.
David Evans, a leading climate scientist in Australia said the following:
“The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic”.
Soiinds to me like another liberal pillar is on weak footing. Stay tuned for the mea culpas.
-
Identity trumps facts.
Identity politics & science and everything else to many people, who you identify with determines your belief set regardless of the facts.
To be a Conservative & Republicans means rejecting global climate change, so climate change is a lie made up in a conspiracy.
Evolution is a lie to many on the Right because the Bible is literally true.
Vaccines don’t prevent disease, they cause autism. Or enslavement when mandated if you are a Republican or are Western conspiracies to enslave Muslims if you are Muslim in some areas of the world.
Saddam really hid his weapons of mass destruction well since we can’t find them. Or we really did find them.
Obama was born in Kenya. Obama hates white people He is both incompetent and the evil and capable devil behind conspiracies to undermine the Constitution in order to take over the country as a dictator or subordinate the US to the UN.
The government is going to take your guns. Obama has “said” he hates the 2nd Amendment.
Of course Obama “hates” the 2nd Amendment – he “hates” the Constitution itself. The latter is proven by the former since everyone knows the 2nd Amendment is THE most important right, trumping all others.
Identity politics. Don’t confuse me with the facts.
-
-
-
Frumi -Sorry I don’t keep a reference list of peer reviewed scientific articles on hand for your education and remedial de-programming. Nevertheless I found the the piece I cited to be informative and congruent with common sense. You should hold your sources to the same standard of rigor, especially if you are going to be preaching AGW religion. BTW, I found the links you cited to be woefully lacking of scientific data. More like political opinion pieces. East Anglia … heh!
-
Why not read the conclusions of the National Academy? Their creds are a bit more substantial than the website you posted. But then you prefer the conclusion over the data.
-
Aldadoc, if your concept of “common sense” is exemplified by that Middlebury link, then…well…you might consider giving your nucleus Criticus Thinkus a bit of a tuneup. The author is simply a retired physics geek who once studied “ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere” (like ionosphere!) and was a “co-developer” of a fancy mass spectrometer. That “bio” link attributes [u]zero[/u] qualifications to the author as an expert on climate issues, let alone on global warming: http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html#bio .
But seriously, does it really matter if it’s anthropomorphic or not? The point is that [i]it’s happening[/i] (even most anti-anthropomorphs believe [i]that![/i]), which means if we sit back and let Nature have at it, we could be signing our own death warrant. And so the point isn’t what is causing global warming to happen; the point is that [i]it’s happening[/i], and the sooner we assess how/whether we can survive it, the more likely it is that we [u]will[/u].
-
Alda’s argument is the patient who visits several physicians, specialists & specialist institutions all who give the same diagnosis of advanced cancer. The patient obviously does not like the prognosis as it is expensive and has no happy ending.
The patient finds someone who claims to be a doctor, albeit a PhD in literature perhaps, who argues that all of the physicians and institutions are frauds and charlatans making it all up just to steal the patient’s money on false pretenses. In fact the patient find more who are of the same opinion. As for the “evidence” of CT & MRI, scans, etc, it’s all misinterpreted, probably deliberately. After all, there are many people who have been diagnosed by those physicians as sick who are still living and getting sick is normal since people have got sick since time began and hasn’t the patient been sick them self on more than 1 occasion & come through? It’s probably a temporary imbalance of the patient’s humors.
Charlatans obviously. Only those few have told the patient the real truth over the greed & fraud of the many.
-
Frumi – Very amusing analogy, but you are obviously not following the point. I think a more apt analogy would be the analogy of aldadoc as Galileo Galilei challenging the philosophical, religious and scientific establishment dogma of his time. Pope Urban VIII and his followers, Frumi, Lux and Back in the Saddle”s geocentric conventional wisdom was flat out wrong, unsupported by legitimate empirical data. History was not generous to them.
Scientists conclusions have to hinge on the quality of the raw data. It is a matter of public record that the global climate data was manipulated in order to achieve a pre-ordained conclusion. As far as I’m concerned, the data is worthless; ergo, the conclusions are at the very least, tarnished, and at the worst, worthless. Many of the scientists in the National Academy are financially and emotionally vested in the pre-ordained conclusion of AGW. Denial would mean evaporation of many huge grants. Those who are intellectually honest, are starting to walk back their conviction.
Lux- It really DOES matter if warming is anthropogenic or not. Huge political and financial decisions are being made, based on the premise of man-made climate change. The cause of warming may very well be due to cyclical atmospheric changes or caused by shifts in the earth orbital pattens or shifts in the earth’s axis. If this is the case (highly probable), rather than your arrogant assumptions that it is caused human interactions, then it is unlikely that your being forced to buy a Prius or ride the train is going to make any difference. Blind acceptance of AGW as a fact is de-facto issuance of a license for the government to further t control of your life. Sorry, but I’n not buying.
-
I remain a skeptic. Most if not all of the dire predictions have not come to pass, but that doesn’t defer anyone.
There are three classes that promote the global warming climate chaos change gospel:
1. The TRUE BELIEVERS. We see them here on this thread. They are sincere in their belief, and as rabid as one would expect of someone who has been convinced that the destruction of the world is imminent but preventable if one follows and spreads the WORD.
2. The “academics/scientists”. Yes, the majority seem to favor GWCCC. Grants, tenure, recognition, power, money, etc, clearly favor those on one side of this issue, and most aren’t going to buck the system that feeds them. The majority of academicians are also Liberal to the point of Socialism (see #3).
3. Liberal/Leftist politicians. GWCCC is a philosophy that demands the dismantling of capitalism. Deny it all you want, but this is the ultimate goal, to be achieved via draconian laws and class warfare. (“You don’t need that SUV,” says Mr. Obama.) Power is to be concentrated in the hands of the Leftist High Priests of Gaia like the greedy and hypocritical Al Gore, who personally pollute more than most small nations.
Why do we keep going here? You are never, ever going to convince me and the majority of skeptics of the anthropomorphic nature of GWCCC. And I won’t convince you otherwise. I’ll keep driving my SUV and you keep driving your Priapuses (I DO hope you practice what you preach…). Empty gestures like driving Priapuses, using poisonous fluorescent bulbs, having minimal-flush toilets that have to be flushed 10 times to do the job, and so on make the BELIEVERS feel better about what wonderful world-saviors they are, but really have no effect on the future of the planet.
Skeptic out.
-
And yet the best argument you can muster about yesterday’s report from the national Academy of Sciences is that they are charlatans – the test being if any one drives a SUV it is proof of fraud – or they are self-deceived. Because we already know that scientists – some of those same scientists, mind you, have told us that the world has been warmer before – and colder. Snowball Earth for instance or meteor impacts destroying most all life on the planet – not once but a couple of times. Not to mention something about floating continents and Pangea. But then where’s the proof.
As for heliocentrism, it was proposed (first published?) in the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos. It was actually Copernicus who started the Copernican Revolution when he finished his theory in 1530 (started 1506). In 1533 Widmannstetter gave lectures in Rome about Copernicus’s theory & Pope Clement VII listened with interest & Cardinal Nikolaus von Schoenberg encouraged Copernicus publish in 1536. This followed by Kepler with his Mysterium Cosmographicum published in 1596. Galileo “proved” the theory with his newly invented telescope around 1610.
It was the Church who was the Conservative defender of the status quo against Galileo’s proof. Where is the proof from Deniers?.
-
Dalai:
I don’t like being binned into a label. My only point was that aldadoc has no concept of how volumes of peer-reviewed investigations weigh against a single retired upper atmospheric physicist who is now a gardener and publishes his uninformed rants in public web sites. It’s a matter of relevant credentials and the scientific basis of insight. It has nothing to do with ideology, unless you think expecting someone to back up his opinion with reasonble scientific principles represents an “ideology”.
-
Looks like NJ Chris Christie is not a denier. I guess this confirms that he is [u]not[/u] going to run as GOP candidate for President.
In the past Ive always said that climate change is real and its impacting our state, he said in a press conference yesterday (video below). Theres undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing. Decade average temperatures have been rising and temperature changes are affecting weather patterns and our climate.
When you have over 90 percent of the worlds scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and humans play a contributing role, its time to defer to the experts. we know enough to know that we are at least a part of the problem.
-
intro – I am a climate agnostic.
I have to say throwing around words like “denier” thus bringing to mind holocaust deniers is odious, and I don’t want to believe you because I don’t want to be in the same corner as people who do that.
but — that has nothing to do with the science.
There have been sensational predictions made by those who believe most fervently in anthropogenic climate warming. Because they were sensational, I was skeptical.
Here is catalogued a number of them:
http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/05/25/polar-ice-rapture-misses-its-deadline/
1979 Palm Beach Post article resurfaced in which Steven Schneider, who for the past 30 years was one of the most prominent global warming alarmists, claimed the west Antarctic ice sheet could melt before the year 2000 and inundate American coastlines with up to 25 feet of sea level rise.
Didn’t happen
Mark Serreze, a researcher with the federally funded National Snow and Ice Data Center, frightened the masses in June 2008 by claiming there was a 50-50 chance the North Pole would be ice-free in the upcoming summer.
Didn’t happen
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claimed in its most recent report that global warming is likely to rapture away the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. When investigators discovered there was no scientific evidence to support the claim, and a good deal of scientific evidence countering the claim, the rapture prediction was canceled.
David Viner, a researcher at the University of East Anglia (UK) climatic research unit claimed in the year 2000 that within just a few years, children just arent going to know what snow is and snowfall will be a very rare and exciting event…..Real-world climate data, moreover, show annual snow extent is trending up, rather than down, in recent decades.
The people making these claims would do best to not keep sounding the alarms, and instead get back to work on better models.
Of course none of the above proves or disproves that warming is happening. It is simply more noise to sort out of the signal, making it even more difficult to know what is really happening.
-
Kind of apathetic here. I watched a NOVA program yesterday about the melting antarctic and they showed these fancy sped up animations of New York sinking underwater like people are going to suddenly wake up one morning and need a boat. And this smart and slightly excited scientist lady describes water levels rising up to 19 feet(!!) over the next “few hundred years” and I am thinking OK maybe now is not a good time to invest in stock in life preserver companies.
Yes the intellect in me can accept something is probably going to happen and we may or may not like it. But the realist in me also accepts that the current situation places humans entirely dependent upon fossil fuels for the VAST majority of its energy now and for the foreseeable future. We will continue using it for our needs until scarcity and price force us to use something else. Therefore, unless the entire human race undergoes some massive suicidal spasm of environmentalism or we figure out some totally freaking amazing, limitless and 100% safe energy source, things are going to proceed on their current leisurely path. We will “adapt” to whatever happens, because, that’s what we do.
-
ORIGINAL: PostCall
. Therefore, unless the entire human race undergoes some massive suicidal spasm of environmentalism or we figure out some totally freaking amazing, limitless and 100% safe energy source, things are going to proceed on their current leisurely path.
fusion
-
“fusion”
Let me know when I can buy my “Mr. Fusion” powered flying car 😉
-
Dr. S, your point gets to the heart of the matter.
Second, the US cannot long term solve this problem alone. We could commit mass suicide tomorrow, and even then carbon output is going to increase.
That doesn’t mean we should do nothing…but it does give some perspective.
By the way, your term ‘agnostic’ is about right.
-
ORIGINAL: PostCall
“fusion”
Let me know when I can buy my “Mr. Fusion” powered flying car 😉
Well –
IF we were to start a BIG GOVT project, say on the scale of the manhattan or apollo projects, then we MIGHT be able to have fusion power in 10-20 years.
Then – your electric car is a reality.
BTW – in my philosophy, these types of big visionary projects are the only ones that Govt can do better than private.
But it required visionaries. Not many of them around right now. -
Too true, this would be a huge project. But I have been reading about how fusion is going to be the answer to all our energy problems since I was a kid. I may have a better shot at the flying car before my time is up.
-
Sardonicus,
You can cherry-pick overblown rhetoric & you would be correct to doubt their intelligence as well as powers of Cassandra. You can also blame the media for their penchant for over-dramatization. Is it mere exaggeration for the sake of exaggeration or an illustration of a possibility?
However, in spite of that there are many scientists who are fully concerned about warming & many who believe that the causes are largely anthropogenic. Are they all deluded or Chicken Littles or just in it for the money to knowingly investigate frauds? you tell me? Are the minority the only ones who see the real truth while the vast majority are the deluded ones? Or fakers?
The vast majority talks about sea levels rising but they also say they don’t KNOW the full effects or the effect’s timetables. You think the published articles about the data are made up or just misinterpreted? They publish data for peer review & so far the majority of peers are not in opposition.
-
I don’t think they are deluded Frumi. I think there is a segment of them that believes they are on a crusade….almost religious in rhetoric. But most of them are honest scientists, and I take their opinions to heart.
That said…the science to me is not conclusive. I don’t mean about warming…I am even willing to lean toward anthropogenic warming as a fact. But your statement about not knowing the full effects or timetables is key…because that is the most important. part.
For example, if the rise is oceans is 1 inch over a million years…are we going to go nuts? Of course not.
Now, it could be the other extreme…but evidence doesn’t show either way, as you clearly stated.
So until such time they can have better predictive analysis, it is very difficult to convince most people that they must sacrifice major life necessities, including livelihoods. This goes double for countries like china and India, who will always struggle to feed their populations and give them basic necessities.
It becomes more a problem of practicality than science. And on practical terms, no one in the scientific community has shown enough to convince starving people to sacrifice. When that happens, the debate will be completely over.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I love how an opposing opinion, running contrary to concensus, is qualified as pioneering truth. Somehow the contrarian that we side with becomes an Ignac Semmelweis or Galileo.
How much of our current scientific concensus driven opinions and theories have been subject to massive revision in the last 20-30 years? There are areas of uncertainty such as in quantum physics but the Lamarckian v. Darwinian large controversies have disolved.
A solid reason for discrediting a large body opinion would be personal or group gain. Scientists are not know for their sheeplike mentality. So in the absence of profit motive I see no reason to discredit the conclusions which appear to be substantiated by measurable quantities and trends. What does the group gain by establishing a causal relationship between mans footprint and an elevation in global temperature? Anecdote abounds but so does corroborating data.
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
Frumi – Very amusing analogy, but you are obviously not following the point. I think a more apt analogy would be the analogy of aldadoc as Galileo Galilei challenging the philosophical, religious and scientific establishment dogma of his time. Pope Urban VIII and his followers, Frumi, Lux and Back in the Saddle”s geocentric conventional wisdom was flat out wrong, unsupported by legitimate empirical data. History was not generous to them.
Scientists conclusions have to hinge on the quality of the raw data. It is a matter of public record that the global climate data was manipulated in order to achieve a pre-ordained conclusion. As far as I’m concerned, the data is worthless; ergo, the conclusions are at the very least, tarnished, and at the worst, worthless. Many of the scientists in the National Academy are financially and emotionally vested in the pre-ordained conclusion of AGW. Denial would mean evaporation of many huge grants. Those who are intellectually honest, are starting to walk back their conviction.
Lux- It really DOES matter if warming is anthropogenic or not. Huge political and financial decisions are being made, based on the premise of man-made climate change. The cause of warming may very well be due to cyclical atmospheric changes or caused by shifts in the earth orbital pattens or shifts in the earth’s axis. If this is the case (highly probable), rather than your arrogant assumptions that it is caused human interactions, then it is unlikely that your being forced to buy a Prius or ride the train is going to make any difference. Blind acceptance of AGW as a fact is de-facto issuance of a license for the government to further t control of your life. Sorry, but I’n not buying.
-
Here is an interesting question.
Let us presume, for the sake of argument, that global warming is happening. Let us presume we cannot be entirely certain of the reason, but suspect carbon.
Should we do anything about it?
This is not a trivial question. Any intervention to slow or reverse the process will be a massive intervention. Massive interventions have potentially massive consequences, some expected and some unexpected. So we can reasonably assume that there will be some important, unexpected consequences. Possibly worse than the disease being treated. (anyone remember flecanide?, or how about introducing mongooses into Hawaii to control snakes. Bad outcomes.)
Who would authorize this massive intervention? Would the US do it on its own? HA!. If say 20 countries agreed to do something, can they impose it on the rest of the planet? There is one proposal I have heard of to pump some sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere to counter overheating. What I have heard is that it would take a modest amount in the upper atmosphere. Let’s suppose that China, Russia, Germany, Japan, and a few other countries get together and decide to do this “for the good of all humankind”. Let’s say that we in the US are concerned that such a radical solution might, for example, result in acidification of the ocean, or that they may overshoot and plunge us into an ice age. but the other countries don’t believe that will happen. Over our objections, they start pumping large amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.
Are we happy? no. Probably the beginning of the environmental war.
When you look a few steps down the road, it is much more complicated that whether or not the warming is real, and whether it is due to humans.
-
-
ORIGINAL: PostCall
Too true, this would be a huge project. But I have been reading about how fusion is going to be the answer to all our energy problems since I was a kid. I may have a better shot at the flying car before my time is up.
1) it IS a hard problem
2) no one takes it seriously, it gets nearly no funding. If you don’t try, your results will be negative. That’s why I specified a large project. This is important, it merits our attention. IMHO, this has far more potential for signficant impact on our energy situation than any solar or wind project. Those are pedestrian, not visionary.-
Oh, oh. GOP Candidate Romney accidentally admitted the truth, there is global climate change, humans are part of the primary causes & the science is behind that conclusion.
Between that & his health care he’s toast. The GOP base doesn’t like that. What’s next, a dual solution to the economy, spending cuts AND revenue increases AND jobs?
-
Well, I think he is toast anyway. But he was stuck. Just like with health care, he had long ago said he believes in global warming is man made…to flip flop again would damage him more than stating his belief.
-
-
A study on the politcal polarization on opinions on climate change.
[link=http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx]http://www.gallup.com/pol…nge-not-top-worry.aspx[/link]
Polling data released this month by the Gallup Organization further underlines that partisan split. Gallup found that [link=http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx]36 percent[/link] of Democrats cited climate change as something they worry about, compared with just 10 percent of Republicans. The only area that showed a bigger partisan gap was the size and power of the federal government, along with its corollary, federal spending and the deficit.
Gallup found an even larger gap when it asked about the effects of climate change. When asked whether global warming had already started, [link=http://www.gallup.com/poll/167879/not-global-warming-serious-threat.aspx]73 percent[/link] of Democrats said yes, compared with just 36 percent of Republicans. Fifty-six percent of Democrats called it a serious threat to their way of life, compared with only 19 percent of Republicans. Fully one-third of Republicans said global warming would never happen, something just 3 percent of Democrats agreed with.
that from a great opinion piece on Bloomberg today on why climate change denialism runs so strongly GOP
[link=http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-18/changing-americans-minds-on-climate-change]http://www.bloombergview….inds-on-climate-change[/link]
It’s one thing when Republicans and Democrats disagree on questions of values, such as whether the government ought to provide health insurance for those who can’t afford it otherwise. But big disagreements over descriptive questions — questions of observation and fact, rather than of preference — suggest something else is going on.
One possible interpretation is that Republicans are just plain worse than Democrats at absorbing and understanding science. That’s absurd, and Democrats who reach that conclusion will only make this debate harder to resolve.
Another possibility is that Republicans are being deceived, whether by their news outlets, their opinion leaders or their political representatives. That’s a tempting conclusion, but it feels too limited. Sure, liberals and conservatives watch different television stations, but they’re not living in different countries. The gaps picked up by Gallup suggest some deeper division.
[b]A third interpretation is that political preferences have leaked into the perception of fact. Republicans may conflate the existence of climate change with the need for more government — more federal research, more federal programs, more intervention in the economy, and more taxes to pay for all of it. Rather than relax their objection to government, maybe it’s easier to look for reasons to think that climate change isn’t happening, or isn’t serious.[/b]
If this new effort by climate scientists makes it harder for that kind of self-deception to continue, kudos to them. But the human capacity to believe whatever suits you is close to endless. Maybe easing Republicans’ resistance to the idea of climate change will require easing their resistance to the idea of government as an occasional force for good.
-
observation:
Given the extent of the debate about the science on climate change
and
given the extent of the debate about utility of mammograms (32 year debate now)
Regardless of where you come down on these, it is actually possible to make at least one conclusion:
Any direction of medicine which is “evidence based” will have to wait for many years (? 50?) for the evidence to become relatively definitive.
Meanwhile, patients need to be treated, they won’t wait. (or, as the ultimate cost saving measure, we could let them die while we wait to see if we want to approve their treatment).How can you possibly run a medical system based on “evidence based” criteria, if no one can ever agree what the evidence says?
You can’t.-
Hmmmmmmm how can you run your hospital on evidence based Criteria when no one agrees on everything???????
Have to say I wholeheartedly agree
Since no criteria exists they manufacture then manipulate data Acquired by useless money sucking hacks like Press Ganey, Thompson Reuters etc and somehow manage to always score in the top 5% of hospitals in the country
Perhaps a bigger Joke than evidence based medicine is this marketing ploy masked as some type of Science
Sorry this pseudo data which is nothing more than marketing made to look official is really my pet peeve of annoyance
-
Obama neatly summarizes the GOP congress thinking on climate change.
[link=http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-17/for-republicans-first-immigration-now-climate-change]http://www.bloombergview….ion-now-climate-change[/link]
Speaking on Saturday of science deniers in Congress — those who call global warming a hoax, or a fad — Obama noted that at least they have the brass to say what they actually think. Far worse, he suggested, are those who claim to be unqualified to engage the topic at all, because they are not scientists — a common [link=http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/why-republicans-always-say-im-not-a-scientist.html]rhetorical tactic[/link] among Republicans hoping to skirt the issue.
[b]”I’ll translate that for you, Obama said. What that really means is, I know that man made climate change really is happening, but if I admit it I’ll be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot, so I’m not going to admit it.” [/b]
-
Once again the repugs are exposed as the hypocrites they are.
-
The analogies used here have been bad at best, pathetic at worst. Someone diagnosing a patient with “cancer” is not anywhere NEAR trying to gather data for one HUGE patient – the world (remember, we looked at the natural history of 1000s of humans for diagnosis and prognosis, meaning we could actually use the scientific method). We don’t make models without prior insight to try to predict things for a patient. The models are, and have been, totally off the mark, and there are many of them. The alarmism is as unhealthy as it is unscientific.
It is very easy to spot the great political “This is a danger, let us step in, take power from you, and save you from X (yourself, “it”, harm/danger) for the hoax that it always is. This one is blatant. The icing on the cake is the change of words/language, a typical progressive stategy, a moving of the goalposts when things don’t turn out how they claimed they would. World’s not warming anymore? Oh, sorry, we meant “climate change” as if anyone can dispute that climate changes.
NEWS, progressives, THE WORLD DOESN’T DIE
Ironically, they are the most arrogant in thinking they can do so much about a system they can’t possibly fathom (and even without the help of billions of others that don’t give a damn about their 1st world “problems”, which would be absolutely requisite to have any hope whatsoever if they’re right!)
Unreal the ignorance and arrogance in these positions-
Cigar,
If the world is not warming anymore, why are the glaciers still melting?
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/science/the-melting-isnt-glacial.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…ting-isnt-glacial.html[/link]
[attachment=0]-
Quote from Frumious
Cigar,
If the world is not warming anymore, why are the glaciers still melting?
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/science/the-melting-isnt-glacial.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…ting-isnt-glacial.html[/link]
[attachment=0]
I don’t know, nor do the “climate scientists”, because neither you nor they can explain why the glaciers are also [b]thickening[/b].-
“The point is, the global climate is generally warming and it is due to particular matter accumulating in the atmosphere which is largely derived from fossil fuel combustion byproducts and is clinging on to solar energy and melting both ice caps and just about everything in between. ”
This is total speculation. If it were absolutely true and so well founded, why are so many models completely wrong regarding their predictions? -
Thickening????
Evidence? Where is your evidence of global thickening?
-
Ahh the nihilist view…since computer models can’t accurately predict detail, ignore all the data and trends. The absence of models predicting the opposite barely exist. Oh and since this won’t be a problem for at least a half century why should we care (yet the national debt is somehow a catastrophe needing solving) and besides it’s too hard and the rest of the world isn’t helping. Like most things all we get are excuses….from the same folks who complain we are not world leaders in foreign policy. Well which is it we care about the future and we want to lead the world or not?.
Sure we don’t HAVE to do anything and the Earth doesn’t HAVE to support human life–ask the dinosaurs -
Quote from Cigar
“The point is, the global climate is generally warming and it is due to particular matter accumulating in the atmosphere which is largely derived from fossil fuel combustion byproducts and is clinging on to solar energy and melting both ice caps and just about everything in between. ”
This is total speculation. If it were absolutely true and so well founded, why are so many models completely wrong regarding their predictions?
What sort of infallible predictive models do you have in mind as an example? I’d like to know some examples. Because much of the predictions have been pretty spot on.
Let’s look at atomic and quantum theory as an example. You would dismiss those? What complex systems do you have in mind. Let’s just look at “normal” weather & what your local weather will be “accurately” 1 month from now. Can’t do it. must be bogus.
Do you have any scientific backing for your dismissal of global warming as a reality?
And pray tell, where are all the thickening glaciers? Greenland? Antarctica? Andes? Alps? Alaska? Montana? Himalayas? Kilimanjaro? Arctic Sea?
Where? Because all the above are losing ice. -
Quote from Cigar
If it were absolutely true and so well founded, why are so many models completely wrong regarding their predictions?
The timing and intensity of the change is hard to predict but not the diirection.
The vast majority of peer reviewed studies are in the diedtion of warming.I assume you really do know that but insist that Fear News must be right to doubt them even tho they’ve only produced politicians, movie stars, and their own eye candy to rebut climat scientists who don’t get paid 6 figures to debate on demand.
-
[link=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0125_020125_antarcticaclimate_2.html]http://news.nationalgeogr…tarcticaclimate_2.html[/link]
Some places thicken, some places thaw. If they thicken, it’s because of greater precipitation, because of warming. So they have all their bases covered regarding thinning and thickening. Sorta silly
[link=http://www.ibtimes.com/thickening-karakoram-glaciers-himalayas-confirmed-scientists-baffled-satellite-images-437622]http://www.ibtimes.com/th…atellite-images-437622[/link]
We don’t really know what’s going on. That’s great reason to take liberties from people and increase their costs. Just trust us, it’s good for you.
Sincerely,
Progressives
-
As Jim Steele would tell you, and I found this out long ago, there are myriad natural cycles that are at work and the single avg. global temperature is as meaningful to the politically emotional and manipulated in the same way that LDL and BP are to the layman patient; many things are at work and yes, locally a whole number of findings can be present or absent. The funny thing is that the progressives here use all these names and pejoratives to guys like me who actually just have an open mind.
[link=http://www.amazon.com/Landscapes-Cycles-Environmentalists-Journey-Skepticism/dp/1490390189/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1403228810&sr=8-1&keywords=jim+steele]http://www.amazon.com/Lan…mp;keywords=jim+steele[/link] -
Quote from Cigar
As Jim Steele would tell you, and I found this out long ago, there are myriad natural cycles that are at work and the single avg. global temperature is as meaningful to the politically emotional and manipulated in the same way that LDL and BP are to the layman patient; many things are at work and yes, locally a whole number of findings can be present or absent. The funny thing is that the progressives here use all these names and pejoratives to guys like me who actually just have an open mind.
[link=http://www.amazon.com/Landscapes-Cycles-Environmentalists-Journey-Skepticism/dp/1490390189/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1403228810&sr=8-1&keywords=jim+steele]http://www.amazon.com/Lan…mp;keywords=jim+steele[/link]
You seem to be saying that even though the vast majority of climate scientists concur with the theory that the climate is trending warmer, we should also acknowledge that there is an opposing theory, even though held by a minority and, therefore, that opposing theory not only deserves airplay, it should be treated with equal credibility. I disagree.
-
Feynman on prediction & scientific method:
[link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffr69ZovHKc[/link]
Is light particles or waves? Silly, no?
[link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kekayfI8Ii8[/link]
-
When science models fail, good scientists challenge the premises. In the case of AGW, the scientific method has been replaced by political fervor and economic interests. Premises cannot be challenged, data is falsified or hidden, failed models are propped to drive policy. This is no longer science. The issue has crossed into the realm of manipulation of the masses. There is no rational discourse. People are vilified, ridiculed or fired from their jobs if they don’t tow the line. These are the new-age jihadists, using science as a cloak.
-
Quote from aldadoc
When science models fail, good scientists challenge the premises. In the case of AGW, the scientific method has been replaced by political fervor and economic interests. Premises cannot be challenged, data is falsified or hidden, failed models are propped to drive policy. This is no longer science. The issue has crossed into the realm of manipulation of the masses. There is no rational discourse. People are vilified, ridiculed or fired from their jobs if they don’t tow the line. These are the new-age jihadists, using science as a cloak.
But where is your argument Alda, when most scientists accept the premise of global warming in general and anthropogenic causes of same.
Premises are made, challenged and failed all the time. Just see the arguments about the Antarctic ice.
The simple fact is that you are wrong & are opposed to climate warming or change purely for political reasons and not scientific ones. The denialist cause is almost all political with few facts presented. The strongest argument made by deniers is, “are you sure that is the reason?…could be something else…don’t know what but could be.”
[link=http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html]http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html[/link]A comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of global warming and climate change has revealed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that recent warming is human-caused.
The findings are in stark contrast to the publics position on global warming; a 2012 poll* revealed that more than half of Americans either disagree, or are unaware, that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is warming because of human activity.
John Cook said: Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.
There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception. Its staggering given the evidence for consensus that less than half of the general public think scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
This is significant because when people understand that scientists agree on global warming, theyre more likely to support policies that take action on it.
-
What’s even more ironic is that we’re accusing one another of exactly the same things, don’t you guys see that?
But the skeptics aren’t claiming to understand climate. Don’t you see? Why not be cautious when so many resources are at stake. Science even studied with individuals and real outcomes (HRT, “fat will kill you” etc.) has been wrong countless times. Yet we’re supposed to just swallow it all?
Talk about arrogant, rogue “science” unwilling to hear criticism, which is the purpose of science. And you’re accusing us of being derelict in the scientific method. It’s absurd. -
Quote from Cigar
[link=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0125_020125_antarcticaclimate_2.html]http://news.nationalgeogr…tarcticaclimate_2.html[/link]
Some places thicken, some places thaw. If they thicken, it’s because of greater precipitation, because of warming. So they have all their bases covered regarding thinning and thickening. Sorta silly
[link=http://www.ibtimes.com/thickening-karakoram-glaciers-himalayas-confirmed-scientists-baffled-satellite-images-437622]http://www.ibtimes.com/th…atellite-images-437622[/link]
We don’t really know what’s going on. That’s great reason to take liberties from people and increase their costs. Just trust us, it’s good for you.
Sincerely,Progressives
The amazing part is the rejection of science by people trained in science based on purely political positions only. Rather like Stalinist Russia.
The argument is that, using germ theory for example, some people sicken & some don’t and some people get sick and then get better. It’s a “natural phenomenon” and therefore why waste $ and effort trying to cure illnesses? Just to make the progressives (i.e., physicians) richer? “Trust us, buy this medicine, allow this treatment & we’ll make you better.”
“Sounds like a lot of progressive hooey to me! Just something to make doctors richer. It’s just natural that some get sick while others don’t. It’s not complicated at all. Imagine some microscopic agent making you sick? Impossible. How could something you can’t see make you sick?”
Very scientific.
-
When applying logic to the evidence fails to support their fears, they must resort to juvenile oversimplification which can more easily be spun. It’s a common practice of the far right and it’s why they fully support the dumbing down of the American education system.
-
Whoa, major Star Trek flashback about the zenite consignment in the episode The Cloud Minders, 1966:
[blockquote][i][regarding the toxic air quality inside the zenite mine…][/i]
[i][link=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0689210/]Vanna[/link][/i]: It’s hard to believe that something which is neither seen, nor felt, can do so much harm.
[i][link=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000638/]Captain James T. Kirk[/link][/i]: That’s true. But an idea can’t be seen or felt, and that’s what’s kept the Troglytes in the mines all these centuries, a mistaken idea.
[i][link=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0689210/]Vanna[/link][/i]: Would all the Troglytes wear these masks?
[i][link=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000638/]Captain James T. Kirk[/link][/i]: Yes. I’ll see to it that the Federation engineers construct them.
[i][…and then later in the episode…][/i]
[i][link=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0689210/]Vanna[/link][/i]: We’re sealed in!
[i][link=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000638/]Captain James T. Kirk[/link][/i]: Completely.
[i][link=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0689210/]Vanna[/link][/i]: But soon the atmosphere will go. We’ll die!
[i][link=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000638/]Captain James T. Kirk[/link][/i]: Die form something that can’t be seen? You astound me, Vanna.[/blockquote] -
Quote from Cigar
[link=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0125_020125_antarcticaclimate_2.html]http://news.nationalgeogr…tarcticaclimate_2.html[/link]
Some places thicken, some places thaw. If they thicken, it’s because of greater precipitation, because of warming. So they have all their bases covered regarding thinning and thickening. Sorta silly
So no uniformity means it’s not real. How about modeling radiation exposure. Can you predict who will get cancer from radiation exposure? How about survivors of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, how do they model?
Sorta silly, no? Can’t model them, can’t predict who will die & who will not due to even a single high dose of radiation. Workers at Fukushima? Total speculation about the dangers of radiation, no?
Your above National Geographic article, did you actually read it?
Here’s another for you that is more recent.
[link=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/melt-of-key-antarctic-glaciers-unstoppable/]http://www.scientificamer…-glaciers-unstoppable/[/link]Question again, when modeling and predicting the future, what models do you know of that are accurate?
As Neils Bohr said,
[u][b]Prediction is very difficult, especially if its about the future.[/b][/u]
-
-
-
Quote from Cigar
The [u][b]analogies[/b][/u] used here have been bad at best, pathetic at worst. Someone diagnosing a patient with “cancer” is not anywhere NEAR trying to gather [u][b]data[/b][/u] for one HUGE patient – the world (remember, we looked at the natural history of 1000s of humans for diagnosis and prognosis, meaning we could actually use the scientific method). We don’t make models without [u][b]prior insight[/b][/u] to try to predict things for a patient. The models are, and have been, totally off the mark, and there are many of them. The [u][b]alarmism[/b][/u] is as unhealthy as it is unscientific.
It is very easy to spot the great political “This is a danger, let us step in, take power from you, and save you from X (yourself, “it”, harm/danger) for the hoax that it always is. This one is blatant. The icing on the cake is the change of words/language, a typical progressive stategy, a moving of the goalposts when things don’t turn out how they claimed they would. World’s not warming anymore? Oh, sorry, we meant “climate change” as if anyone can dispute that climate changes.
NEWS, progressives, THE WORLD DOESN’T DIE
Ironically, they are the most arrogant in thinking they can do so much about a system they can’t possibly fathom (and even without the help of billions of others that don’t give a damn about their 1st world “problems”, which would be absolutely requisite to have any hope whatsoever if they’re right!)Unreal the ignorance and arrogance in these positions
Where have you been? Virtually everyone who admits to understanding some modicum of science agrees that the climate has been changing compared to recent history and that the average temperature of our atmosphere and oceans is slowing warming. It’s called “climate change” because there are many pockets on earth that are actually cooling, largely due to changes in ocean salinization, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t “warming”.
If anything, YOU are the hypocrite, because it’s people like you who pick on every word, like “warming” and cry foul when you can locate a region where the temperature is actually decreasing, and that results in scientists agreeing that the climate isn’t “warming” everywhere equally, and so in consideration to the objections based on local cooling they changed the generic term to “climate change” and now you’re crying about THAT!
The point is, the global climate is generally warming and it is due to particular matter accumulating in the atmosphere which is largely derived from fossil fuel combustion byproducts and is clinging on to solar energy and melting both ice caps and just about everything in between.
Stop picking on minutia and look at the big picture for once.
-
Christian Science Monitor:
[url=http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2017/0112/Judge-Exxon-must-hand-over-decades-of-documents-in-climate-change-probe]Federal Judge orders Exxon to turn over decades of documents in climate change probe[/url]A judge in Massachusetts ruled Wednesday that Exxon Mobil Corp. must release four decades’ worth of documents to authorities investigating what the oil and gas company knew about climate change, and when they knew it.
Exxon had asked a Massachusetts judge to exempt it from an order from the state’s attorney general, but the judge on Wednesday declined to do so, ordering the company to release mountains of documents.
Judge Heidi Brieger noted in her order that the attorney general did not need to establish “probable cause” that Exxon had violated the law in order to demand the documents. A mere “belief that a person has engaged in or is engaging in conduct declared to be unlawful” would suffice, she wrote, handing a small victory to Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey.“Exxon must now end its obstructive tactics and come clean about whether it misled Massachusetts consumers and investors about what it knew about climate change, its causes and effects,” Chloe Gotsis, a spokeswoman for Ms. Healey, said in a written statement.
-
[url=http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html]EPA chief Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming[/url]
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
“But we don’t know that yet. … We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”Pruitt’s view is at odds with the opinion of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
-
Ban all water vapor!
-
Quote from Dr. ****er
Ban all water vapor!
Yeah, all you know is that there is more water vapor in the air because of the increasing heat of the oceans, nothing to do with global climate warming. Maybe Right-wing hot air contributing to ocean temperatures and water vapor too?
-
Somewhere I read they were working on cutting the NOAA budget. Probably an important agency to boaters like Dergon. I think we should heat the White House with a coal fired furnace.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
More pictures for you cigar.
[link=http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/stunning-photos-glaciers-retreating-alaska-20130717]http://www.weather.com/ne…eating-alaska-20130717[/link]
Please explain how glaciers are continuing and even accelerating their melt if warming does not exist or if warming has stopped. -
Quote from Cigar
[1.] Some places thicken, some places thaw…
[2.] We don’t really know what’s going on. That’s great reason to take liberties from people and increase their costs. Just trust us, it’s good for you.
Sincerely,Progressives
[1.] As if all “somes” are created equal. Typical rightwing Manichean thinking.
[2.] Yes, we do. And as far as I’m concerned, the archetype poster child of [i]”taking liberties from people and increase their costs” [/i]is the Bush Administration.
I have no idea where you get [i]”Just trust us, it’s good for you”.[/i] I don’t recall the Dems waving that flag. But as far as I’m concerned, that very statement is what should be said to all those who vote against their own best interests, like all those impoverished RINOs in the Deep South who [i]cheered[/i] Romney when he campaigned to [i]cut[/i] entitlements. And then brought their EBT card to the local Dollar General so they could replenish some of the essentials in life.
-
Annual mammos are not settled. So your advice is to stop?
We are not arguing the same thing at all. The evidence is that global warming exists now. The evidence is that the Earth is warming now. The evidence is that glaciers are melting globally as is the Arctic & Antarctic sea ice. The evidence is that it is largely anthropogenic. There are perhaps 3% of scientists who perhaps don’t agree & there is a political party who does not agree for political reasons refuting all evidence of the existence of warming and warming caused by humans.
Quantum mechanics is still largely unproven yet it is accepted. Much of astrophysics is unproven yet is largely accepted. Why make warming the single exception solely for political reasons. The only “rogue” science is the faux science of the deniers.
We are not on the same side. We are not arguing the same thing at all. The fact is that you never make a cogent argument about why. Examples about fad diet and nutrition advice notwithstanding. you prove nothing. Explain my questions about radiation & why there are survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who received what should have been a lethal dose of radiation. As if that proves that radiation is not dangerous.
You explain nothing. You are religious I believe. Yet the Church, all religions, have been proven wrong about so many things so many times – including morality. So isn’t that equivalent proof that religion is nothing but a conspiracy with blind followers? Except I am not talking about faith because science has to prove something & make experiments that demonstrate the efficacy of theory. If the experiments don’t hold up the theory is wrong.
So far the experiments are holding up the theories of warming and anthropogenic causes. Fad diet advice and experiments has not held up to experience and has been proven wrong. That is the difference you are missing.
-
Frumious, obviously those guys don’t give a crap about evidence.
They only care about coming up with an opposing opinion so that they can insist that it is given equal, and neutralizing, credibility.
They are the mouse that roared.
-
Again, they are people working in a scientific field. Or has that somehow changed. Radiology and medicine is just magic by another name? All medicine and science can be discounted by the “wrong” ideas about hormonal replacement therapy or diet advice about fat vs carbohydrates or trans-fats being “healthier” than saturated fats.
-
It’s just like creationists who want equal time next to Darwin.
Unfortunately one must EARN credibility. No one is ENTITLED to it. And credibility is earned when it is based on the preponderance of evidence.
On the other hand, if a minority have a different opinion, it is incumbent on them to prove their case and neutralize the data that dominates the discussion. They certainly are not entitled to credibility just because they have a differing perspective.
-
In the meantime, Germany is making lots of progress with solar…but its just too hard for us
[link=http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526]http://www.reuters.com/ar…-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526[/link]-
A friend of mine who listens to too much Fox & talk radio insists that solar can’t succeed in the northern US because we are too far north latitude. It’s a waste of effort, not enough sunshine, he says. I keep telling him to look on a map to see where Germany is but he insists that solar is still undoable except for places like Arizona & Texas. In the next breath he will also argue that solar is killing the energy generating business.
There’s always a complaint no matter what is decided.
Republicans are beholden to the fossil fuels industry. Renewable are the stuff of fantasizing granola eaters & tree-huggers, not real American.
Like the Tesla. Will never be able to work in spite of existing evidence to the contrary.
I recall similar arguments on AM that renewables could never work so why try. Yet 1 particular poster boasted the he had solar on his house. Go figure.
Dig, baby dig!
-
-
-
-
-
-
We change too, rhosch, as we age & through experience <SHOCK!> We also tend to do that. More shock?
What is always missing in the mild acceptance or dismissal of anthropogenic climate change is data. Shock & awe.
What is missing is argument that explains why the “hysterical” scientists (who must be, by definitions, Left) must be wrong & over-reacting to every little thing. They are wrong because God promised Noah? Or something else? Climate could never get bad enough to cause global problems for many humans? Because? At what level would you all define “catastrophe?” Or is the question irrelevant because it could never happen…because…?
Where’s the meat of the counter arguments? The vast majority of scientists believe and strongly enough for major concern. And you all think they are nuts & over-reacting because…why?
Data. Be scientists. Discuss data. Experiments. Where are the glaciers? How hot do you think it would have to get before even you all would be concerned? Or again, 2 degrees C are impossible, much less 4 degrees C.
Why.-
Well, I don’t exactly need data to “counter” the part of the climate change “hysteria” I’m talking about, because that is exactly where data from the hysterical side runs out. Even though I know that current climate models are extraordinarily sensitive to input conditions, such that tiny changes give wildly diverging results as time progresses, and even though I know that we still have a lot to learn about those inputs, much less the models, I’m willing to completely cede that part of the discussion. I’ll hop on board the consensus that the Earth is warming and we caused it.
Now, where’s the data that tells me that the consequences of predicted levels of temperature rise over the next century or so are catastrophic to humans? I know, I know, ocean levels rising. Even that isn’t such a straight forward argument to make, but I’ll go so far as to grant that this happens. So we have to adapt, rebuilding coastal cities over the next hundred years. I’m yet to be convinced that is any more difficult or expensive than the proposals I’ve seen to stop the warming. What else? Huge hurricanes and droughts? Or fertility in areas of the planet that were once humid? Is a few degrees warmer for humans worse than a few degrees cooler?
Where is that data? Show me some to consider, and then I’ll decide whether any counter argument needs to be made. And beyond that, supposing that we could even have the impact we want, what are the forecast costs of the proposed efforts? Where is the analysis that looks at the impact this would have on our economy?
All I’m saying is lets slow down, have a rational discussion about the “best way” to go about tackling this supposed catastrophe before we create a sure enough one in the attempt. I’d rather not spend a billion dollars now on what might cost ten thousand thirty years from now. And no, I’m not just trying to kick the can down the road to our children, I’m trying to protect them from an economic disaster. I don’t know how expensive a solution will be a few decades from now, but I can see how expensive the proposals are looking right now, I know that the climate won’t be much different in a few decades even in the doomsday predictions, and the math isn’t looking so good.
No one is having a rational discussion about the alternatives to the “stop burning coal and oil now” plan. Anyone who approaches that discussion is labeled a denier, skeptic, killing our children, greedy capitalist…-
Quote from rhosch
Well, I don’t exactly need data to “counter” the part of the climate change “hysteria” I’m talking about, because that is exactly where data from the hysterical side runs out. Even though I know that current climate models are extraordinarily sensitive to input conditions, such that tiny changes give wildly diverging results as time progresses, and even though I know that we still have a lot to learn about those inputs, much less the models, I’m willing to completely cede that part of the discussion. I’ll hop on board the consensus that the Earth is warming and we caused it.
I see, so certainty is lacking because it hasn’t happened yet & we have no experience of seeing what has happened when it might have happened in the past, therefore you see no reason to make efforts to counter warming. The only effect of warming you see is rising sea levels. So coastal countries that drown are little consequence, island nations disappearing under the water are of no consequence, moving cities in industrial countries further inland are no problem.
BTW, moving these cities inland, I suppose you think moving will be cost free with no need for government and taxes?
Greenland will grow grapes and the tundra will become the new farmlands, Minnesota will have palm trees & endless summer. It will be California weather for everyone, everywhere, every month. Paradise on Earth. There will finally be a Northern Passage year round.
Well we are seeing more than that already, Coral reefs for example don’t survive acidification very well. Nor does a lot of sea life life fishes. All these displaced people due to their countries & cities being washed away will want to migrate somewhere. Or are we also looking at a Malthusian solution to check and reduce populations? But no catastrophe, eh?
If Minnesota, for example becomes tropical, what of the Tropics? What happens there? Does it become more welcoming and lush to life & human civilization or less? Where will your deserts form and what about surface water? Who will see more rainfall & who will see less? Which wildlife will survive the change & which will not.
Further bear in mind we are not talking about gradual change over centuries of millennia, but very possibly over decades. How quickly does flora and fauna adapt to sudden global changes like raising the average temperatures another 2 degrees Celsius?
How about food supplies? No disruption that you can see to agriculture? Places that depend on water from summer melt will get their water from where? Pump it from the ground? Oh but Texas and California and other places are seeing the limits to that plan too. The water isn’t limitless.
How can you be so sure that all this concern by scientists are not just hysteria? What do you know that they don’t? After all, they are actually studying and trying to plan for such a future & they are frankly, scared.
But you are not. What makes you certain that nothing further than rising oceans will happen & that rising ocean are of no consequence? Data?
[link=http://www.climatehotmap.org]http://www.climatehotmap.org[/link]
[link=http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/]http://www.ucsusa.org/glo…e_and_impacts/impacts/[/link]
[link=http://climate.nasa.gov/effects]http://climate.nasa.gov/effects[/link]
[link=http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/threats-impacts/]http://www.nature.org/our…hange/threats-impacts/[/link]
[link=http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm]http://www.skepticalscien…ositives-negatives.htm[/link]
-
Quote from Frumious
I see, so certainty is lacking because it hasn’t happened yet & we have no experience of seeing what has happened when it might have happened in the past, therefore you see no reason to make efforts to counter warming.
You really got that from my post? I skip the debate about model accuracy and concede the that the whole premise of AGW is correct and beyond question, and say we should have a rational discussion about how to best mitigate the supposed ecological disasters without creating an economic one, and you read that as me saying we should make no efforts? Unless one joins the hysteria and is willing to go Captain Ahab on the climate, we aren’t concerned?
The only effect of warming you see is rising sea levels.
It’s the one I mentioned. And to the point, yes, predictions that the climate suddenly goes ape **** when 2 degrees warmer are alarmist. It will change. None of our models are reliable enough to predict just how.
So coastal countries that drown are little consequence, island nations disappearing under the water are of no consequence, moving cities in industrial countries further inland are no problem.
I said no such thing. I said some things would certainly be painful. Did you notice I was trying to engage in a real discussion, or just knee-jerk your responses?
BTW, moving these cities inland, I suppose you think moving will be cost free with no need for government and taxes?
Oh, sure, I said exactly that. I’m sure you also assumed from some of my other previous comments in this thread that I am uniformly against taxes. Why not just ask if you aren’t sure what I think? That’s a pretty good starting point for having a discussion.
If Minnesota, for example becomes tropical, what of the Tropics? What happens there?
I don’t know.
Does it become more welcoming and lush to life & human civilization or less?
I don’t know.
Where will your deserts form and what about surface water?
I don’t know.
Who will see more rainfall & who will see less?
I don’t know.
Which wildlife will survive the change & which will not.
I don’t know.
How quickly does flora and fauna adapt to sudden global changes like raising the average temperatures another 2 degrees Celsius?
Not sure what you mean… by definition, to answer your question, if they adapt in decades then that is quickly. Did you mean to ask something else, like how likely they are to adapt? To answer that just in case… I don’t know.
How about food supplies? No disruption that you can see to agriculture?
I don’t know.
Places that depend on water from summer melt will get their water from where? Pump it from the ground?
I don’t know.
How can you be so sure that all this concern by scientists are not just hysteria?
I can’t.
What do you know that they don’t?
A lot I presume. About the climate specifically? Not much at all I would presume.
What makes you certain that nothing further than rising oceans will happen & that rising ocean are of no consequence? Data?
Oh, I am certain that something other than ocean level changes will happen. Just what is the question, and all your links give predictions based on highly sensitive models that have to have input conditions massaged just to get agreement to the point we are today. Using them to extrapolate out is dangerous.
But grant that even then, even despite all the danger in treating the science in that manner, I accept that all the links with all the hysterical predictions will come true. What is the economic cost? Where is that discussion? How does that compare to the cost of proposed efforts to prevent it? Is that a reasonable price to pay? What technologies would be required to effect change more efficiently? What is the investment price today to grow those technologies in a reasonable timeframe? Is that better or worse as a value proposition than the “stop burning oil and coal now” plan?
Somehow, you seemed to have misconstrued my post as thinking I have all the answers. Hardly. I’m simply pointing out that the important questions aren’t even being asked… NO ONE has those answers yet, and for some reason even suggesting we have that discussion brings knee-jerk reactions from people like you who are so hellbent on convincing everyone AGW is real that you can’t shift focus to the more important topic of what we should rationally do about it if true.-
Quote from rhosch
Quote from Frumious
I see, so certainty is lacking because it hasn’t happened yet & we have no experience of seeing what has happened when it might have happened in the past, therefore you see no reason to make efforts to counter warming.
You really got that from my post? I skip the debate about model accuracy and concede the that the whole premise of AGW is correct and beyond question, and say we should have a rational discussion about how to best mitigate the supposed ecological disasters without creating an economic one, and you read that as me saying we should make no efforts? Unless one joins the hysteria and is willing to go Captain Ahab on the climate, we aren’t concerned?
Yes, I did get that from your post & no I did not see you fill in the blanks. I did not see an acceptance of AGW as beyond question by you. Considering that neither Lux or Thor saw that either I think, maybe the fault is yours in your expression & lack of nuance? Or something? You do dwell on the hysteria description however which might lead one to think you are not accepting the arguments of AGW. Another example is “Captain Ahab.”
What “rational” discussion & solutions are you proposing then when you describe warmers as hysterical and Captain Ahabs??-
The climate warmers take another hit:
[link=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html]http://www.telegraph.co.u…obal-warming-data.html[/link]
[i]”The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record.[/i]
[i]…in recent years, NOAAs US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been adjusting its record by replacing real temperatures with data fabricated by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data… [/i]
[i]
[/i]
[i]…Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.”[/i]-
Still the problem of melting glaciers, Alda. Glaciers do not melt because things are getting cooler. The telegraph needs to get out of the office. Look at pix of the glaciers in the 1930s & compare them to now & then explain.
The article is talking about US temperatures anyway, not global.
Oops.
[link=http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/.search/briefs/hansen_07/[/link]
Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years.
A picture of how U.S. climate change during the past half century compared with the rest of the world is shown in Figure 2. This map shows that the trend has been toward warmer temperatures in most of the world. There has been nearly ubiquitous warming in the tropics, especially in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, where the largest warming coincides with the location of more frequent strong El Niños. The strongest warming has been in Alaska and northern Asia. Warming in Alaska is often associated with El Niños. A suspicion of many climatologists as yet unproven is that an increasing greenhouse effect may cause more frequent and intense El Niños. Asia has long been predicted to show the largest warming due to increasing greenhouse gases, especially in the winter, and observations are consistent with that.
[link=http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm]http://www.skepticalscien…est-year-on-record.htm[/link]
Climate change skeptics like to point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. However, this is another example of “cherry-picking” a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.
The fact that there were hot years in some parts of the world in the past is not an argument against climate change. There will always be regional temperature variations as well as variations from year to year. These happened in the past, and they will continue. The problem with climate change is that on average, when looking at the entire world, the long term trend shows an unmistakable increase in [i]global[/i] surface temperatures, in a way that is likely to dramatically alter the planet.
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm]http://www.skepticalscien…negatives-advanced.htm[/link]
[link=http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/]http://www.climatehotmap…global-warming-effects/[/link]
[link=http://www.planete-energies.com/en/energy-and-the-environment/climate-change/climate-change-has-serious-consequences-142.html]http://www.planete-energi…-consequences-142.html[/link]
[link=http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/a-darker-view-of-the-age-of-us-the-anthropocene]http://dotearth.blogs.nyt…of-us-the-anthropocene[/link]
-
[link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg&feature=youtu.be]http://www.youtube.com/wa…g&feature=youtu.be[/link]
-
I do believe it is extremely important to document these kinds of ideological debates for the edification of the readers of these forum discussions. The irony is that we will NEVER convince the ideologues with whom we are actually debating. That’s why I love these discussions; they can continue as long as you want them to because there will never be closure.
-
The deniers still offer no facts on the data already measured ands the effects already seen and the trends of such. And consequences are dismissed as essentially inconsequential.
-
Quote from Lux
I do believe it is extremely important to document these kinds of ideological debates for the edification of the readers of these forum discussions. The irony is that we will NEVER convince the [b]ideologues[/b] with whom we are actually debating.
Quote from Frumious
The [b]deniers[/b] still offer no facts on the data already measured ands the effects already seen and the trends of such. And consequences are dismissed as essentially inconsequential.
Sigh.
Quote from rhosch
No one is having a rational discussion about the alternatives to the “stop burning coal and oil now” plan. [b]Anyone who approaches that discussion is labeled a denier, skeptic, killing our children, greedy capitalist… [/b]
Who are the idealogues again?
-
rhosch,
You can not have a rational discussion with the irrational. You can not be honest with the dishonest. You can not be eventempered with the intolerant.
That is something I have learned from those on this discussion forum who tend to post the most.
Just wait for the personal attacks and threats. They will come. That is all they have. Pure hatred.-
Supremes have ruled in favor of EPA’s rules regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/us/justices-with-limits-let-epa-curb-power-plant-gases.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…power-plant-gases.html[/link]
Awesome. Only Alito & Thomas dissented!
-
Looks like George Shultz & other Republicans are joining Hank Paulsen in hysteria mode about global warming.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/science/report-tallies-toll-on-economy-from-global-warming.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…om-global-warming.html[/link]
More than a million homes and businesses along the nations coasts could flood repeatedly before ultimately being destroyed. Entire states in the Southeast and the Corn Belt may lose much of their agriculture as farming shifts northward in a warming world. Heat and humidity will probably grow so intense that spending time outside will become physically dangerous, throwing industries like construction and tourism into turmoil.
That is the picture of what may happen to the United States economy in a world of unchecked global warming, according to a major new report being put forward Tuesday by a coalition of senior political and economic figures from the left, right and center, including three Treasury secretaries stretching back to the Nixon administration.
The big ice sheets are melting; somethings happening, [link=http://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/shultz-george-pratt]George P. Shultz[/link], who was Treasury secretary under President Richard M. Nixon and secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan, said in an interview. He noted that he had grown concerned enough about global warming to put solar panels on his own California roof and to buy an electric car. I say we should take out an insurance policy.
The former Treasury secretaries including Henry M. Paulson Jr., a Republican who served under President George W. Bush, and Robert E. Rubin, a Democrat in the Clinton administration promised to help sound the alarm. All endorse putting a price on greenhouse gases, most likely by taxing emissions.
I actually do believe that were at a tipping point with the planet, Mr. Paulson said in an interview at his home in Chicago. A lot of things are going to happen that none of us are going to like to see.
In an interview in New York, Mr. Rubin urged the Securities and Exchange Commission to take a tougher stance in requiring that publicly held companies disclose the climate-related risks they may face. While many companies have started issuing such warnings to investors, the disclosures are often vague and inadequate, he said.
[b]Here we have this existential threat that I really do think has the possibility of being catastrophic, and I dont think people have any sense of that, Mr. Rubin said.[/b]
[link=http://riskybusiness.org]http://riskybusiness.org[/link]
[ul][*]By the middle of this century, the average American will likely see 27 to 50 days over 95°F each yeartwo to more than three times the average annual number of 95°F days weve seen over the past 30 years. By the end of this century, this number will likely reach 45 to 96 days over 95°F each year on average.[*]As with sea level rise, these national averages mask regional extremes, especially in the Southwest, Southeast, and upper Midwest, which will likely see several [i]months [/i]of 95°F days each year.[*]Labor productivity of outdoor workers, such as those working in construction, utility maintenance, landscaping, and agriculture, could be reduced by as much as 3%, particularly in the Southeast. For context, labor productivity across the entire U.S. labor force declined about 1.5% during the famous productivity slowdown in the 1970s.3 [/ul]-
What is the cost effectiveness of various possible courses of action? What morbidity and mortality are we talking about? We have dire predictions, granted, what I’m asking is what is the real human and economic cost. Let’s spend a little time on those two topics first before going headfirst down a road we may one day regret.
[link=http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics.html]http://www.epa.gov/climat…ivities/economics.html[/link]
What people sometimes fail to realize is that perhaps the most heavily regulated industry we have is our own government. Congress piles on regulation after regulation in an attempt to prevent or frustrate govt agencies from doing their jobs (a bipartisan affair). In this case the EPA has to produce data to justify what they are doing. The economic analyses are out there with a simple internet search; the fact that you have not looked for them does not mean they do not exist -
Quote from Thor
[link=http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics.html]http://www.epa.gov/climat…ivities/economics.html[/link]
What people sometimes fail to realize is that perhaps the most heavily regulated industry we have is our own government. Congress piles on regulation after regulation in an attempt to prevent or frustrate govt agencies from doing their jobs (a bipartisan affair). In this case the EPA has to produce data to justify what they are doing. The economic analyses are out there with a simple internet search; the fact that you have not looked for them does not mean they do not exist
Yes, you are right of course. Plenty of people are having the discussion I’m talking about… economists of course have been working on this for years. In my (failed) attempt to broaden the dialogue it does seem as if I’m saying no one is concerned about these questions which isn’t true. I wish this were the topic of such discussions as this is where IMO the meat of risk analysis and cost-benefit decisions lie, which will ultimately guide our actions.
More on point, the EPA and other analyses I’ve seen in whole or in part have large degrees of uncertainty not only because of the inherent uncertainty in the climate models used to create projections but because of the difficulty in applying those projections to economic models to make forecasts. The range spans from some 0.5% GDP to 20% GDP, and that’s only economic effects taking climate events as a given input (which is what I’ve been advocating). And all such analyses I’ve perused lean heavily on current emission curbing costs and perhaps implementation of current technologies with understandably little attention given to future technological solutions. Beyond that, there seems fair criticism that the EPA actions in levying carbon taxes will have little if any of the desired climate impact. But this will cost taxpayers/energy consumers money, and I don’t see that the money will be invested into developing technologies that might approach the problem in a more efficient manner. -
I wish I could pick the next mega-millions lottery ticket or pick the next bull stock that will earn me million$. But it’s the inherent uncertainty of the prediction models used to create projections that prevent this from happening.
As I quoted Bohr earlier,
Prediction is very difficult, especially if its about the future.
There us no certainty about future changes precisely because it is unknown territory. There are several models, all subject to observation testing & like all models, subject to uncertainty & adjustment based on observation & testing. But you have no alternative models to offer so your argument is empty.
-
Antarctic sea ice sets a record:
[link=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/[/link]
First the arctic next the antarctic. When the data doesn’t fit the models… -
Ah, the the Antarctic land ice is melting at an accelerating rate. Watts up with that???
[link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/20/polar_ice_loss_antarctica_melting_faster_greenland_more_vulnerable.html]http://www.slate.com/blog…d_more_vulnerable.html[/link]
[b][/b][b]Bad News the First:[/b] CryoSat, a European Space Agency Earth-observing satellite,[link=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract]has found a sharp increase in the rate at which Antarctic land ice is melting[/link]its losing a staggering 159 billion (yes, [i]billion[/i], with a [b]b[/b]) tons of ice every year. Previous measurements (made from 2005 to 2010) were lower, closer to 100 billion tons per year.
The use of CryoSat has made a big improvement in the ability to measure Antarctic ice; it covers 96 percent of the continent (to within a couple hundred kilometers of the pole), and gets far better observations of the coastline too. The new results show that most of the loss of ice is coming from West Antarctica, [link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/12/global_warming_antarctic_glacier_collapse_may_now_be_inevitable.html]where a recent study showed the eventual collapse of the glaciers there is inevitable[/link]. Fully 134 billion tons of ice melts [i]just from that location[/i] every year, with the ice thinning by 4-8 meters where it meets the water.
[link=http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/CryoSat_finds_sharp_increase_in_Antarctica_s_ice_losses]These new measurements show[/link] that the southern continent alone is responsible for a 0.45 mm rise in sea level every year. Thats pretty sobering. Oceans are [i]big[/i], so even half a millimeter per year is a vast amount of water.
[i](Incidentally, if anyone leaves a comment about Antarctic sea ice being at higher levels than ever, [link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/12/global_warming_antarctic_glacier_collapse_may_now_be_inevitable.html]feel free to berate them with the difference between sea ice and land ice.[/link])[/i]
-
[link=http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/todays-climate-embarrassment.php]Today’s Climate Embarrassment:[/link]
“[i]For a while now were heard that the steadily dropping level of the Great Lakes is yet another sign of[i]wait for it now[/i]global warming . . . er, climate change . . . er, climate disruption, or whatever were supposed to call it this week. The hotlink to Great Lakes drop on [link=http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm]The Warmlist[/link] has gone dead, and by the way, is there still some snow and ice in the Great Lakes here at the end of June? There still was in mid-June, and that ought to be embarrassment enough for the Climatistas, if they were capable of shame and embarrassment.[/i]
[i]Anyway, the [i]New York Times[/i] [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/us/creeping-up-on-unsuspecting-shores-the-great-lakes-in-a-welcome-turnaround.html]reports today[/link] that Great Lakes levels are suddenly rising, much to the surprise of scientists.[/i]
[i] [/i]
[i]…you do have to wonder whether the International Joint Commission is some kind of cannabis-related entity that went into the wrong meeting room somewhere, and produced another silly climate report that has been falsified [i]already[/i]. I suggest they all go out and get real jobs.”[/i]
[i] [/i]
Heh!
[i] [/i]
[i] [/i]
-
-
-
Quote from radmike
rhosch,
You can not have a rational discussion with the irrational. You can not be honest with the dishonest. You can not be eventempered with the intolerant.
That is something I have learned from those on this discussion forum who tend to post the most.
Just wait for the personal attacks and threats. They will come. That is all they have. Pure hatred.It sounds like you’re taking into the mirror.
For your information, the only people in recent history I’ve called a “name” are those whacky right wingers who eventually got ejected from the discussions from the moderator for being out of control with their irrationality, hatred and ad hominems, so what does that say about who has a sound perspective of “rational”?
The House GOP has not shown any sign of rationality, only paralysis and bigotry toward ANYTHING proposed by the Dems, and now the House Republicans are in the process of eating each other alive.
No one in the Bush administration had a rational bone in their body, including Colin Powell, and history will bear that out.
So what is the basis of your point?
-
Rhosch,
Like clockwork. Just as I predicted.-
You remind me of the bully who thinks he’s hot sh;t just because he is able to predict that the guy he’s bullying is going to call the cops because he got insulted that you punched him in the face and scratched the paint on his car, as if we are to believe you have some great insight into human nature.
The only thing I said that challenged you is “So what is the basis of your point?”. No “rational” person would consider that to be a “threat”, “personal attack” or “pure hate”.
-
as an aside how many people are switching over to succulents in their yard..as the drought gets worse here on the west, I see more people getting rid of their gardens…some are very successful in giving it a lush look and some just go cheap and it looks to sparse/like a desert
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Lux
I do believe it is extremely important to document these kinds of ideological debates for the edification of the readers of these forum discussions. The irony is that we will NEVER convince the ideologues with whom we are actually debating. That’s why I love these discussions; they can continue as long as you want them to because there will never be closure.
That’s because you are the ideologue and don’t want to admit your mind is made up, which is unscientific. # Confirmation bias-
So Obama made a deal with China & the Republicans are squealing about the deal!
Funniest is McConnell who said:
I was particularly distressed by the deal hes reached with the Chinese on his current trip, which, as I read the agreement, it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years, while these carbon emission regulations [b]are creating havoc in my state and other states across the country.[/b]
What havoc? There is no warming, he absolutely adores coal & CO2 is not a pollutant so there is no harm or havoc to his state.
But now they won’t have China as the straw man to complain about. They are even complaining that China signed!
[link=http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/12/3591317/republicans-freak-out-china-us-climate-deal/]http://thinkprogress.org/…china-us-climate-deal/[/link]
Chinas [link=http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2014/11/12/what-the-big-u-s-china-climate-announcement-means/]willingness[/link] to be an international player in climate change efforts and its commitment to increase its non-fossil fuel energy sources to 20 percent by 2030 make the deal a significant step for the country. China has already positioned itself as a world leader in renewable energy investment in recent years, spending [link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2014/06/17/china-leads-in-renewable-investment-again/]$56.3 billion[/link] on renewable projects in 2013. And far from doing nothing, some experts have praised the 20 percent target as ambitious.
Twenty percent does sound fairly robust, Jake Schmidt, director of the international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/world/asia/climate-change-china-xi-jinping-obama-apec.html]told the New York Times[/link]. Youre talking about 20 percent of a huge economy being based on non-carbon-dioxide emissions sources. Thats significant.
McConnell isnt the only lawmaker to take issue with the new deal. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) [link=http://www.businessinsider.com/boehner-slams-obamas-climate-deal-with-china-2014-11#ixzz3IrlvpV2X]agreed[/link] with McConnell: he said Wednesday morning that the plan is the latest example of the presidents crusade against affordable, reliable energy that is already hurting jobs and squeezing middle-class families. As did Ed Whitfield (R-KY) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI): the two lawmakers [link=http://whitfield.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/whitfield-responds-to-president-s-unfair-emissions-deal-with-china]said[/link] the deal meant that China is promising to double their emissions while the administration is going around Congress to impose drastic new regulations inhibiting our own growth and competitiveness. John Barasso (R-WY) also agreed, saying the deal is a great deal for the Chinese government and the Chinese economy.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), a climate denier whos now set to become head of the Senates Environment and Public Works Committee, also blasted the agreement but for being too ambitious on Chinas end, rather than not ambitious enough. Inhofe called it a non-binding charade and cast doubt on whether China would be able to meet its commitments.
Its hollow and not believable for China to claim it will shift 20 percent of its energy to non-fossil fuels by 2030, and a promise to peak its carbon emissions only allows the worlds largest economy to buy time, Inhofe [link=http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/223823-inhofe-us-china-climate-pact-a-non-binding-charade]said Wednesday[/link]. China builds a coal-fired power plant every 10 days, is the largest importer of coal in the world, and has no known reserves of natural gas.
-
We have to think outside the box. The stupid everyday people driving in their fiberglass earth incinerators (i.e. cars) have to be operantly conditioned. Tonka trucks and toys need to be confiscated from boys immediately and replaced with windmills. TV and internet advertisements must show rivers of crude enveloping their suburban enclaves. Great countries who cut their energy use per capita like Zimbabwe need to seen as examples of greatness to aspire to.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rather like Monty Python’s Black Knight who keeps fighting as he’s lost.
[link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4[/link]
It would be nice if the deniers presented data in their arguments except the data doesn’t exist. Many still even deny warming exists.
-
What is sad is that conservatives have become anti-conservation and basically expecting that others will bail them out. Not too far off the grasshopper and the ant, except the conservative grasshoppers don’t just deny and ignore, the also want to deplete
-
There is a definite reason for the denial that has nothing to do with the science.
[link=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange]http://www.theguardian.co…scienceofclimatechange[/link]
However, vested interests have long realized this and engaged in a campaign to misinform the public about the scientific consensus. For example, a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 [link=http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf]advised Republicans[/link],
[blockquote] “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, [b][i]you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate[/i][/b]”
[/blockquote][link=http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf]http://www.motherjones.co…search_environment.pdf[/link]
[link=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/02/republican-witness-global-warming-consensus-real]http://www.theguardian.co…warming-consensus-real[/link]
[link=http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/richard-tols-fourth-draft/#comment-822]http://andthentheresphysi…rth-draft/#comment-822[/link]
-
-
-
Another hysteria propounding hysterical solutions for hysterical future scenarios, Hank Paulsen.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/lessons-for-climate-change-in-the-2008-recession.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…he-2008-recession.html[/link]
THERE is a time for weighing evidence and a time for acting. And if theres one thing Ive learned throughout my work in finance, government and conservation, it is to act before problems become too big to manage.
Were making the same mistake today with [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier]climate change[/link]. Were staring down a climate bubble that poses enormous risks to both our environment[i]and[/i] economy. The warning signs are clear and growing more urgent as the risks go unchecked.
This is a crisis we cant afford to ignore. I feel as if Im watching as we fly in slow motion on a collision course toward a giant mountain. We can see the crash coming, and yet were sitting on our hands rather than altering course.
We need to act now, even though there is much disagreement, including from members of my own Republican Party, on how to address this issue while remaining economically competitive. Theyre right to consider the economic implications. But we must not lose sight of the profound economic risks of doing nothing.
-
It is not US warming, it is GLOBAL warming. During the polar vortex this winter, California and Alaska were having record temps.
Beyond that several deniers seem to be against the paradigm of early treatment. They would rail against anything that curtails early treatment in medicine, but ask to do the same for the planet and it is somehow heresy
-
Quote from Thor
Beyond that several deniers seem to be against the paradigm of early treatment. They would rail against anything that curtails early treatment in medicine, but ask to do the same for the planet and it is somehow heresy
In a lot of cases, we have data that suggests preventive medicine and/or early treatment is more cost effective than later stage treatment. In others, we know that even if not cost effective considerable morbidity or mortality can be avoided by prevention or early treatment. And yet it isn’t heresy to have those discussions about whether the prevention or early treatment is the desired way to go, whether in cost effectiveness or morbidity. We see those arguments happening in mammo and other areas even in radiology, let alone the rest of medicine. I don’t think having that discussion is inappropriate. And I and others enthusiastically support prevention and early treatment precisely because we had that discussion, and broached those questions.
What I’m saying is that the heresy, as you call it, seems to be suggesting we have a similar discussion about the climate, environment, and economy. What is the cost effectiveness of various possible courses of action? What morbidity and mortality are we talking about? We have dire predictions, granted, what I’m asking is what is the real human and economic cost. Let’s spend a little time on those two topics first before going headfirst down a road we may one day regret. Like the EPA… I’m afraid they are about to start handing out limits because… that’s what the EPA does. They have a very narrow scope of purpose, yet have been granted a very powerful tool. They can make decisions in a vacuum, ignoring broader impacts and/or alternatives. “X is bad, and we can make X go down by saying ‘X must go down’ so that is obviously a good thing…” I hope someone, somewhere, has the sense to take a deep breath and pause, ask a few pertinent questions, and realize the answers aren’t there yet. I hope. I don’t expect.
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
I did not see an acceptance of AGW as beyond question by you.
Is that required to have a rational, intelligent discussion about possible courses of action to take? To believe beyond question everything that is being claimed? Why can I not question, and still be concerned enough to believe that potential long term consequences demand we look into outcomes of various courses we could take now, and have that discussion about which is most appropriate? Geez. And you wonder why I used the Captain Ahab reference.
You do dwell on the hysteria description however which might lead one to think you are not accepting the arguments of AGW.
I think maybe I get it. You seem really adverse to a discussion about possible actions and outcomes, risk and benefit, cost and value. At this point, I must conclude you don’t really care about that at all… that is, don’t actually care what happens to the planet and/or economy. You just want to be right, and for other people to recognize that you are right. My sidestepping that by forfeit wasn’t good enough.
-
Quote from rhosch
Quote from Frumious
I did not see an acceptance of AGW as beyond question by you.
Is that required to have a rational, intelligent discussion about possible courses of action to take? To believe beyond question everything that is being claimed? Why can I not question, and still be concerned enough to believe that potential long term consequences demand we look into outcomes of various courses we could take now, and have that discussion about which is most appropriate? Geez. And you wonder why I used the Captain Ahab reference.
You do dwell on the hysteria description however which might lead one to think you are not accepting the arguments of AGW.
I think maybe I get it. You seem really adverse to a discussion about possible actions and outcomes, risk and benefit, cost and value. At this point, I must conclude you don’t really care about that at all… that is, don’t actually care what happens to the planet and/or economy. You just want to be right, and for other people to recognize that you are right. My sidestepping that by forfeit wasn’t good enough.
Silly non-argument. You say nothing. You just dance on both sides of the fence feigning making a rational discussion. You try to deflect the reality that staunch Republicans like Paulsen & others are beginning to speak up that global warming is a threat that needs to be addressed. But they are just being hysterical, no doubt.
-
Quote from Frumious
Silly non-argument. You say nothing.
If I’m saying nothing, feel free to stop responding.
-
-
-
It’s already well-documented with a preponderance of scientific data (listening, rhosch?) that due to desalinization and melting of the northern ice plate, the collision of the Newfoundland current and Gulf Stream has shifte from Maine being the center of the collision to Virginia being the center of the collision which will cause tidal swelling for generations along the mid-Atlantic states. This is already cause coastal havoc and is one reason New Jersey’s “Long Beach Island” is now called “Long Beach Islands” due to the formation of a new isthmus across the residential sandbar at the Mantaloking (sp?) Bridge.
-
LBI’s?
No, LBI is south of Mantoloking and the new inlet was filled in again. North of LBI is Island Beach State Park & several towns before you get to Mantoloking.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/realestate/back-to-the-jersey-shore.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…-the-jersey-shore.html[/link]
Phenomenal buying opportunity, some properties are now under $1 million. Until the next big storm or the rise in sea level.
-
[link=http://ssrf.climatecentral.org/#location=NJ_County_34029&state=New+Jersey&level=5&geo=County&pt=p&target=&p=P&stn=8534720&setting=NCA_inthi&protection=&stLoc=NJ_County_34029&proj=Total]http://ssrf.climatecentra…y_34029&proj=Total[/link]
-
Thanks for clarifying. Obviously, I should stick to issues west of the Mississippi! lol
-
-
-
The embarrassment should be your understanding of climate and the concept of global rather than local
-
Yes, right now it is hot here in the USA and cool in the south of Chile. Must be “Climate Change”
-
-
[b]http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/global-cooling-or-global-warming-which-is-it/
[/b]
[ul][*][b]Global temperatures are highest in 4000 years
[/b][link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/science/earth/global-temperatures-highest-in-4000-years-study-says.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/science/earth/global-temperatures-highest-in-4000-years-study-says.html?_r=0[/link] [/ul] [ul][*][b]Is the Arctic Ice Cap really Recovering
[/b][link=http://imageshack.us/a/img594/7655/5vb.gif]http://imageshack.us/a/img594/7655/5vb.gif[/link] [/ul] [ul][*][b]July 2013 was the 341st consecutive month of ABOVE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. August will be the 342nd but has not yet been tabulated, thats over 28 years of consecutive above average temperatures.[/b]
[link=http://www.climatecentral.org/news/july-adds-to-globes-unbroken-string-of-warm-months-16360]http://www.climatecentral.org/news/july-adds-to-globes-unbroken-string-of-warm-months-16360[/link][link=http://www.climatecentral.org/news/july-adds-to-globes-unbroken-string-of-warm-months-16360]http://www.climatecentral.org/news/july-adds-to-globes-unbroken-string-of-warm-months-16360[/link] [/ul] [b]Is the Arctic ice cap really growing? No, it is steadily and rapidly shrinking, the current bombardment of spun math is this, the cap is 60% larger than last year, the lowest ice cover ever recorded. 2013 will still be at best the 4th LOWEST ice extent area ever recorded.[/b] Extent refers to the surface area alone, not the ice mass which I will cover below. The ice mass is by far the most telling factor of what is truly occurring in the Arctic.
[ul] [/ul] -
Fire and brimstone. Better get your last supper quickly before earth turns into an inferno. Empty your bank accounts, sell your SUV’s, woe be us.
Oh wait! Never mind. Another polar vortex is coming.
[link=http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/polar-vortex-part-ii-record-low-cold-possible-next-week/]http://chicago.cbslocal.c…ld-possible-next-week/[/link]
Meanwhile, in the southern hemisphere …
[link=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/brisbane-hits-coldest-temperature-in-103-years/story-e6frg6n6-1226986116278?nk=9fe3cbf4f5bf37a6dc3f771dfd4654b8]http://www.theaustralian….bf37a6dc3f771dfd4654b8[/link]-
What happens to temperatures at the North Pole during a polar vortex….hint look at Alaska temps this past winter…but again keep missing the difference between local temps and global climate
-
What’s worse than humans thinking that they somehow have such a significant impact on the earth and its atmosphere?
Thinking they can do anything about it, especially when they already know they can’t.
It’s hubris upon hubris.
It’s about control. Time to live in a real world where people know that you are lying to them when you say that you can “save them from impending disasters” which are magnitudesbigger than anyone has dreamed of, or studied.-
Except the “inconvenient truth” is that we have in many different ways, we have had an impact and changed the Earth. A simple easy is just to look at a night map of the Earth from space. You think all that energy use & lights and urban centers and changing the local environments with those centers have a zero impact? Cutting down forests & creating farming and grazing land have zero impact? Animals we’ve hunted to or near to extinction have zero impact? Water and air we have polluted have zero impact or water tables we have dropped to never known before levels have zero impact? Overfishing and depleting the oceans so that individual fish populations have difficulty becoming adults before they are caught?
It’s hubris to believe that humans are capable of doing anything to the Earth? Why? Because Genesis promises that everything will be peachy? Or that yes, we have done the above but it is hubris to believe that it is possible for us to undo the damage we’ve created? -
W
Quote from Cigar
What’s worse than humans thinking that they somehow have such a significant impact on the earth and its atmosphere?
Your premise exposes how uninformed you are about the global trending in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years, the impact it has on the oceans (which are a huge sink for atmo CO2), and the consequences such a surge in CO2 has on the biosphere.
You are correct about the insignificance mankind has on planet Earth (the planet will continue on its merry way long after the extinction of all life, let alone mankind), but you seem to neglect the fact that mankind tends to want to survive and that we historically endeavor to do what we can to change planet Earth to help us continue to survive — farming, animal domestication, machines, energy, road infrastructure, shelter construction, clothing… It’s the reason we are not living every-man-for-himself, naked in caves, foraging for lichens and wild berries. Humans have always endeavored to overcome the adverse elements of nature. But you seem to accept risking the demise of mankind simply because it costs too much to do something about it after mankind already has essentially spent the equivalent of THOUSANDS of trillions (“in adjusted dollars”) to get us this far after so many millennia of survival strife.
In light of all the evidence, what’s your plan; just “wait and see”? Do you really think that will be any cheaper?
-
I love how Frumious immediately degrades into some western biblical inerrancy foolishness as a final critique, which shows not only how sad this board can be, but how wrong it is all the time.
There’s a cost to every action, you and I both know it. Most scholars, even buying some sort model by the so called scientists in this case, agree that warming would actually be good for humanity in terms of crops and other factors. We will continue to survive but it has little to do — either way — with our activities (especially as Americans, talk about much more insignificant compared to the real problems of the world and its populations) or our attempts at control, which always fail. Nature always wins. Sorry guys. I’m surprised you’ve not figured that one out.
“Risking the demise of mankind” is so dramatic, alarming, and silly it’s laughable. That’s why this can’t be taken seriously. You want to hand over control to people who don’t care about anything but controlling you and others and you know that practically speaking you don’t gain a thing. Think for a little. You can do nothing but give up more freedoms by paying homage and idol to some government controllers who you act like they actually give a damn about you.
My plan is live and not surrender freedoms to others who will do nothing to help, aside from all of their assurances. You are far too trusting. Sadly, I think you are far too arrogant and know it all to actually be humble about the state of our affairs, something about which you nor those in DC can do anything about.
You trust in the wrong things, my friends.-
Quote from Cigar
“Risking the demise of mankind” is so dramatic, alarming, and silly it’s laughable. That’s why this can’t be taken seriously.
You know no such thing. As far as we know, civilization may have developed to an advanced technology simply to collapse back into the cave as part of the cycle of each of the past 10 ice ages. You might just as well believe the universe is only 6000 years old.
You seem to believe that the death of potentially many millions in the coastal population cause by tidal floods from shifting ocean currents due to weather changes is just “part of nature” and that we shouldn’t do a thing to ensure that doesn’t happen.
And you completely skirted the hard data on atmo CO2 and its impact on the biosphere (presented in peer-reviewed literature by scientists you so arrogantly proclaim as being merely “so-called”).
-
Quote from Cigar
There’s a cost to every action, you and I both know it. Most scholars, even buying some sort model by the so called scientists in this case, agree that warming would actually be good for humanity in terms of crops and other factors.
There is a cost to inaction also.
As to these scholars, who? Yes, they do say some LOCAL areas will improve by warming, specifically northern areas that are or were colder will be warming & therefore their growing season will be longer but they also point out in the same sentances that areas that are warm now will grow warmer & likely be less hospitable to agriculture. They also point out that areas that depend on snow packs for their water will experience much drier conditions as the snow pack either disappears or never appears in the 1st place. They also state unequivocally that coastal areas will experience more flooding and eventually stay flooded.
There is no real good side speculated.
My biblical reference was asking how are you so sure that nothing terrible will happen. Your optimism about the effects of warming are 180 degrees opposite of what science is predicting. If you criticize them about them being so sure, how can you be so sure yourself that everything will be 180 degrees of what science says will happen?
Ignorance is not bliss.
-
“Risking the demise of mankind” is so dramatic, alarming, and silly it’s laughable.
—Perhaps you should ask all the dinosaurs whether they find it laughable-
How on earth can that[i] “laughable”[/i] statement be made with any veracity when geology/paleontology is on record as showing without any doubt that we’ve gone through these cycles many times before, that there was global devastation and transformation with each cycle, and that there is much lore and legend indicating this is not the first advanced civilization humans have built and collapsed through? Cigar seems to have fallen into the [i]”make up your own feel-good fantasy and it becomes reality”[/i] abyss.
Have we really drifted so far from being the strong, cautious, evidence-based society we once were? I mourn for Davinci, Decartes, and Newton.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
