-
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!
[link=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html[/link]
Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing
There has been no global warming since 1995
[*]Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes
Case closed. It was all a lie. ALL OF IT. If you want to go green to starve our enemies in the Middle East, I’m all for it. BUT, our government had best NEVER EVER EVER again quote global warming/climate change as a reason to demolish the economy. If they do, they simply confirm who they are and what they want.
This is pretty much the same as finding the bones of Jesus. It wipes the religion of Climate Change off the face of the earth. Anyone who still [color=#ff0000][b][i][u]bbbbeeeeellllliiiiieeeevvvvveeessssss [/u][/i][/b][/color]is delusional. -
127 Replies
-
Heh! I guess all of those textbooks have to be re-written now. Cap and Trade, Copenhagen, inconvenient Truth, oh my!
-
Let me make sure I understand your conclusions.
That guy in that article lost his old raw data, therefore the glaciers aren’t actually receding all over the world.
Makes perfect sense.
-
Yes, I must trust a source with articles such as
[link=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251040/Rape-Its-fault-victims-say-50-cent-women.html]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251040/Rape-Its-fault-victims-say-50-cent-women.html[/link]
and a whole column of femail tabloid stories on the left column.
You would do better to quote US Weekly-
Ironic anyone would bring up Global Warming (misnomer: [i]should[/i] have been “Climate [i]Change[/i]”, bringing severe weather extremes) just as the entire nation is gripped in record-breaking cold and precipitation — snow — including 10-15 below norms in Florida.
Perfect timing! I’m beginning to think that one temperature graph that spanned hundreds of thousands of years showing no appreciable change was faked…. -
ORIGINAL: Thor
Yes, I must trust a source with articles such as
[link=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251040/Rape-Its-fault-victims-say-50-cent-women.html]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251040/Rape-Its-fault-victims-say-50-cent-women.html[/link]
and a whole column of femail tabloid stories on the left column.
You would do better to quote US Weekly
Sounds like you have bought the human caused global warming story and are a true believer, with an emotional need to believe it. Open your mind.
Here is some more data:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
(the times of london – does that pass muster with you??)The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change, said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.
These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.
Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.The story is the same for each one, he said. The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.
….
Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.
Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Millss findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.
on the other hand
Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.
Its not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming, he said. We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.
The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.
Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.
[b]another item[/b]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7014203.ece
The head of the UNs climate change body is under pressure to resign after one of his strongest allies in the environmental movement said his judgment was flawed and called for a new leader to restore confidence in climatic science.
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has insisted that he will remain in post for another four years despite having failed to act on a serious error in the bodys 2007 report.
John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK , said that Dr Pachauri should have acted as soon as he had been informed of the error, even though issuing a correction would have embarrassed the IPCC on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit.
A journalist working for Science had told Dr Pachauri several times late last year that glaciologists had refuted the IPCC claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Dr Pachauri refused to address the problem, saying: I dont have anything to add on glaciers. He suggested that the error would not be corrected until 2013 or 2014, when the IPCC next reported.So greenpeace is after this guy too. He has no credibility left. Doesn’t even have the cajones to say he was wrong.
and this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/feb/08/case-for-climate-change-science
The apparent abuse of the peer review process is perhaps the most worrying aspect because it is meant to be the gold standard that allows us to distinguish credible science from pseudoscience.
It is hard to see how Phil Jones, the director of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and some of his colleagues will escape censure for the behaviour Pearce exposed. [b]But it is also worth pointing out what neither he nor any other journalist has so far found: any evidence of scientists fiddling their results, or indeed anything that calls into question the scientific case that man is causing dangerous climate change.[/b]
Given that, some, particularly in the climate science community, have wondered why the Guardian devoted so much energy and space to excavating the affair. Myles Allen, a distinguished Oxford physicist, suggested on these pages that the Guardian was “hoping against hope to turn up a genuine error which fundamentally alters conclusions”. The truth couldn’t be further away, but only by looking thoroughly under every rock can those of us pressing for action on climate change maintain with confidence that the scientific case remains sound.
Which brings us to the dismal case of the IPCC and the Himalayan glaciers. Many scientists are still bemused at how the expert panel could have made quite such an eye-watering howler: the prediction that the glaciers would melt by 2035 was not just wrong but wrong by a factor of 10. One scientist tells me that glaciologists had spotted the error and notified the IPCC about it as early as last September, but no effort was made to correct it.
With all this, I can’t see how it is possible to believe either side. Each is corrupted with non-scientific wishes (to control industry, to allow industry to proceed without interference). Everything you and I read is tainted with these biases. Unless we read the original research, or even more accurately, unless I DO the research myself so that I can trust it, everything we read is derivative. First the researchers (who have a stake in this) and then the press (who has a talent for tilting the reports). After the rape of the scientific method by those at East Anglia, certainly they have no credibility at all.
It’s interesting, as I write this, I recall judging some junior high science fairs. The kids were well schooled in the Hypothesis-test-conclusion pattern in the scientific method. If something didn’t work, hey, they said so. I went back to work at the University and contrasted what I saw there to the academic games I saw every day directed toward getting something, anything published, and wondered what had happened to people in the 20-30 years between.
We might be better to turn all of this over to junior high school students.
-
OK, maybe I’m going on too long about this, but the fate of the planet is, of course, dependent on our assessment of this research.
Anyway – here is an exhaustive, embarasssing, accounting of the various tainted pieces of “research” (some of it is only opinion dressed up as research)
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092–.html
conclusion (again): you can’t believe anything that is printed, probably including this.
-
Can I just express a little bit of concern over what might happen if (God forbid) the sun in 2012 (unfortunate date to have picked, I spose, but valid nonetheless) spits out a huge mass coronal ejection aimed just as the Atlantic Megnetosphere Rift is in line to recieve it, blows our crumbling power grid, and the entire country is left without electricity for months during a winter like we just had?
A bit off-topic, I realize, but not really.
This is to say, the quibbling over data, corrupted or not, and the actual cause of Climate Change, anthropocentric or just natural fluctuation, is a little beside the point. Kind of like the meteorologist confused by data in front of him who’s got to issue a local weather forecast…and chokes. Forgot he could just stick his hand outside the window and tell us it’s raining.
The Sun’s behavior has been fluctuating and acting unpredictably, or against prediction, and appears to be interacting with the Earth’s protective magnetosphere in such a way as to make us
prime for conceivable armageddon, and we’re wondering if it’s raining outside.-
I love how everyone who is interested in politics today is Suddenly a global warming expert…………They all know the Facts and the facts are solely dependent on yur political party affiliation.
Science no longer matters-
ORIGINAL: eradicator
I love how everyone who is interested in politics today is Suddenly a global warming expert…………They all know the Facts and the facts are solely dependent on yur political party affiliation.
Science no longer matters
Due in no small part to the fact that many scientists have become advocates and thus politicians themselves. No credibility
-
Not to mention, the scientists themselves are admitting that their science was fraudulent. And these are not minor players…these are some of the key, instrumental scientists who first raised the possibility of man made global warming.
It isn’t about being a scientist…it is about critically asking if the science is legitimate.
The problem is…the side where science doesn’t matter appears to be on the left…
-
Again, forgetting to stick your hand out the window… Meanwhile I understand the uber-wealthy are paying to have old, decomissioned Atlas icbm silos converted to self-contained condominiums, and the government is busy digging underground facilities coast-to-coast, with armed guards to ward off the masses that may try to get in, in the event of ____ (fill in the blank at your lay-scientist pleasure).
-
I’ll wager that all you climatology experts out thee do not really know jack frickin squat about the enviroment or climate changes real or not real. All you are doing is regurgitating political opinions or responding to perceived opinions.
You wouldn’t know climatology if it kicked you in the arse. -
And yet…you don’t talk about science.
The leading climatologist in the world this weekend admitted that the current temperature increase may not be unusual whatsoever. That is not me…that was the scientist himself.
Now, when some of the leading scientists themselves admit doubts…why do you have to be so dogmatic about your beliefs?
Again, your ideology is outrunning your intellect.
-
[b]The leading climatologist in the world this weekend admitted that the current temperature increase may not be unusual whatsoever. That is not me…that was the scientist himself. [/b]
[b][/b]
How exactly does one gain the title of Worlds leading climatologist?
This ought to be good
[b]
[/b] -
Dr. Phil Jones. He is one of the leading climatologists. He was one of the scientists who wrote the papers that Al Gore referenced in his book and movie…and incidentally, helped Gore win the Nobel Prize. He was also the first scientist to talk about the now infamous ‘hockey stick’ increase in global temperatures.
If you don’t know his name…then you clearly are not very informed about climate change at all.
He now admits that data of actual temperatures in Europe during the 1400s was higher than current temperatures. And he admitted in a recent interview if that data is true, the current warming trend is NOT unusual at all.
He also conviently states that the data he used to make his famous ‘hockey stick’ analogy is now…lost. You would expect data showing the end of humanity would be important enough to keep around, but I guess not.
If you don’t understand the significance of this guy admitting his conclusions may be faulty, then you are clearly not a scientist in any sense of the word.
-
Oh, and if you want the original BBC interview (a right wing extremist site if there ever was one….LOL) here it is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
[i][b]B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming[/b]
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.[/i]
You can read the entire interview. He admits there IS NO STATISTICAL ELEVATION IN TEMPERATURES. Now, this from the guy that formed the bulk of Gore’s Nobel Prize winning book.
Now, that doesn’t mean global warming doesn’t exist. It just means that if you have any sort of scientific brain, you have to be more skeptical of the data you are seeing. Unless you want to live in the dark ages, you cannot dogmatically believe or disbelieve global warming…the facts simply are not there yet.
And ironically, Dr. Jones agrees with ME:
[i]
[b]N – When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?
[/b]
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. [b]I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.[/b][/i] -
[b]If you don’t know his name…then you clearly are not very informed about climate change at all.[/b]
[b][/b]
[b][/b]
Knock Knock……………….That is what I already said.
My point being , just because you and the minions on both sides read a few politically biased papers on a very complex science makes you no where near an informed expert. -
ORIGINAL: eradicator
[b]If you don’t know his name…then you clearly are not very informed about climate change at all.[/b]
[b][/b]
[b][/b]
Knock Knock……………….That is what I already said.My point being , just because you and the minions on both sides read a few politically biased papers on a very complex science makes you no where near an informed expert.
Actually, I read a fair number of journal articles on the subject. I am no expert…but I try to be informed about what I am talking about…unlike you, apparently.
Thanks for admitting that you are quite ignorant on the subject.
-
[b]Thanks for admitting that you are quite ignorant on the subject.[/b]
I am very ignorant on the subject and my guess i that you are too -
You guesses tend to be pretty ignorant as well…so that is fine.
-
I was going to join in here but there is way too much hatred.. as Obama and Al Gore says.. we should all love one another.
group hug ! -
I gotta give Jones a few points for saying up front that he may be wrong.
That is how scientists are supposed to act, in contrast to his prior misbehavior.
Of course, he may be trapped and may have to say this by the data coming out, but it is better that I expected.
-
[b]That is how scientists are supposed to act, in contrast to his prior misbehavior. [/b]
[b][/b]
Don’t say that to the cleveland clinic
[b]
[/b] -
I know this discussion has been carried over to a new thread — nice dodge, Erad — but wanted to at least include my substantiation of aforementioned magnetosphere breach if anyone stumbles across this one by itself):
[link=http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm?friend]http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm?friend[/link] -
Just curious about the article:
How does citing the fact that temperatures were warmer in the past invalidate that the claim that we’re currently in a warming trend with possible man-made contributions? Nobody is arguing that manmade causes are the ONLY contributers to global climate change. Citing the warmer period in the dark ages doesn’t disprove anything. It was also a lot warmer when the Earth was taking on its solid form from its original molten mass during planet accretion 4.7 billion years ago. Does that somehow invalidate the theory of man’s contribution to climate change?
Logic: “It can’t be getting hot due to man’s actions, because it was hotter in the past, when man had less ability to make it hot!”
Implied assumption: The only thing that can make it hotter is man’s actions.Is anybody actually reading the articles they post?
-
People give humans too much credit for our effect on the earh. Man’s actions re. earth climate are, but a gnat on an elephant’s butt. Chill out, have a few brewskis and enjoy the warm weather. Hawaii sounds really good just about now.
-
[i]What[/i] warm weather?! Man, I thought I left Denver behind; now the only difference is it’s not slushy/an ice rink on the ground… I dunno, it’s probably 60 in Hawaii. Too cool to snorkel, I’m out.
-
ORIGINAL: HamOnWholeWheat
Just curious about the article:
How does citing the fact that temperatures were warmer in the past invalidate that the claim that we’re currently in a warming trend with possible man-made contributions? Nobody is arguing that manmade causes are the ONLY contributers to global climate change. Citing the warmer period in the dark ages doesn’t disprove anything. It was also a lot warmer when the Earth was taking on its solid form from its original molten mass during planet accretion 4.7 billion years ago. Does that somehow invalidate the theory of man’s contribution to climate change?
Logic: “It can’t be getting hot due to man’s actions, because it was hotter in the past, when man had less ability to make it hot!”
Implied assumption: The only thing that can make it hotter is man’s actions.Is anybody actually reading the articles they post?
The scientists are arguing that our warming is unprecedented. If it is not, their presumption that we are in a new, never before seen warming trend…is out the window.
And that is the problem with this science…we don’t have enough data points.
-
Scientists are not arguing that warming is unprecedented. I’ve never read any paper that said “the climate has never had a warming period before”. To say that scientists are making that claim is to build a straw man, which this thread has dutifully beat the s4!t out of.
The science community is arguing that warming secondary to human action is unprecedented. Just like the magnitude of cooling following Krakatoa’s eruption in the 19th century was relatively unprecedented (at least in recent history). Citing examples of previous warming when human action was not present do not prove or disprove the anthropogenic argument. It just states another example of what we already knew: the climate is pretty volatile over geologic time. Lots of things affect the climate, everyone agrees with that point. That doesn’t mean man’s impact isn’t significantly contributing to THIS warming trend.
To use examples of previous non-anthropogenic warming periods as proof that man’s actions are not currently responsible shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the science. Therefore, citing a warm period in the dark ages as proof against manmade climate change now is embarassing to read.
I agree, we do need more data points. More importantly though, we need to understand the data points we have, and not misinterpret them 2/2 bias.
Reading the article helps.
-
Found this of interest.
[link=http://geology.about.com/od/nutshells/a/aa_climatenuts.htm]http://geology.about.com/od/nutshells/a/aa_climatenuts.htm[/link] -
ORIGINAL: HamOnWholeWheat
Scientists are not arguing that warming is unprecedented. I’ve never read any paper that said “the climate has never had a warming period before”. To say that scientists are making that claim is to build a straw man, which this thread has dutifully beat the s4!t out of.
The science community is arguing that warming secondary to human action is unprecedented. Just like the magnitude of cooling following Krakatoa’s eruption in the 19th century was relatively unprecedented (at least in recent history). Citing examples of previous warming when human action was not present do not prove or disprove the anthropogenic argument. It just states another example of what we already knew: the climate is pretty volatile over geologic time. Lots of things affect the climate, everyone agrees with that point. That doesn’t mean man’s impact isn’t significantly contributing to THIS warming trend.
To use examples of previous non-anthropogenic warming periods as proof that man’s actions are not currently responsible shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the science. Therefore, citing a warm period in the dark ages as proof against manmade climate change now is embarassing to read.
I agree, we do need more data points. More importantly though, we need to understand the data points we have, and not misinterpret them 2/2 bias.
Reading the article helps.
Without the ‘unprecedented’ moniker (and some have indeed made that claim, including Phil Jones himself), there is absolutely NO proof that warming is unusual. None. Zero.
Without an unprecedented change, all you have is two independent ‘facts’…one, that CO2 is increasing, and second, maybe we have a warming trend (although even that is now questioned). Let us, for sake of argument, argue that there is a warming trend. Then, to prove a correlation outside of baseline variability, you must have another factor that shows that this is unusual. That is why many climatologists have, in fact, said the increase in temps was unprecedented. Climatologists, including the UN IPCC, have made that charge over and over again. Dr. Pauchuri, head of the IPCC, made that charge as late as LAST WEEK.
I have NO PROOF that there is not anthropogenic warming. That would be proving a negative. However, the burden of proof, IMHO, is on the scientists. I believe that the question of global warming is unanswered…that is where I stand, and frankly, I see no science to change my belief that we don’t have enough evidence one way or another.
I go back to my argument: this is the wrong discussion politically. We should be moving quickly to alternate fuels and less carbon emissions for the myriad of reasons I presented before. The global warming issue has become an albatross. There are much better and more substantial reasons to change our energy dependence in the short run.
-
Warming is not unusual. Agreed. Straw man dutifully destroyed.. again. Anyone who has taken a 7th grade science class knows that. Remember the Ice Ages? Concept understood.
What is unusual is that man has been pumping all kinds of stuff into the environment for 200 years. That IS unprecedented. Climate change in that setting IS unprecedented, and needs to be studied. Maybe its a causal relationship, maybe not. But its still unprecedented. Arguing the opposite is just silly. Pursuing the science will tell the story eventually. Until then, you just have to do your best, and not abandon the science.
I agree with part of your logic though. If you do not think the CO2 levels are causing the warming (if you even concede that warming is occurring), or you do not think that manmade actions are responsible for increasing CO2 levels, then there are no scientific reasons to limit CO2 production. It is not a pollutant if its not a significant greenhouse gas. The entire argument thus becomes geopolitical and economic if you discount those two factors, I agree.
One point though regarding discounting the warming itself: Its hard to argue that the glaciers aren’t receding over the course of the past 100 years, just to take one small example. Say what you will about fudged data, or interviews with scientists, or warming periods in the dark ages that are not novel or even interesting, where are the glacier’s going? Is that not pretty good evidence of warming, if not overly simplifying a complex science? If you concede that glaciers are disappearing alone, then you can’t just throw out the science and frame the argument as a solely geopolitical issue of energy policy. I’m sure the glaciers have receded in the past, probably for a multitude of reasons. But that doesn’t mean that they’re not receding now. Nor does it mean that the cause of the recession in the past is the cause of the recession now. Maybe manmade causes are not contributing a lick to the current climate change. Maybe its a repeat of previous changes, with similar causes. We don’t know, and that’s why its a scientific pursuit.
My only problem is when people make the “Dark Ages” argument, or the “Scientist X is Lying” argument, or the “Climate Change is Expected So Theres No Need to Study It Or Change Our Policies Because Of It” arguments, they’re intentionally trying to shut down the debate with flawed logic. If you want to win a scientific argument, you have to use credible logic, and those above just aren’t credible.
EDIT: I forgot. Why do you want to limit carbon emissions again, if they’re not causing warming? Seriously, I can’t remember the argument and want to be fair. Good debate.
-
I think any unusual pollutant into the atmosphere is not a good idea. Is it harmful to pump CO2 into the air? I don’t know, but it is doubtful that it is helpful.
I am an environmentalist at heart…we should do as little damage to the environment as possible, whether or not it effects us directly. Who knows what the long term repercussions are.Second, there is the geopolitics. Why the hell should we burn oil, when it costs us so much to gain access to it? Not to mention, it is not an endless source, whether it be 100 years or 500 years…we might as well adapt now.
Third, I think there are better ways to use energy. I think we waste a lot of energy because we are spoiled.
That said, I am doubtful that in the short term you will get India and China to reduce their carbon footprint. So we should become the innovators of future energy sources. It is one way to maintain our global dominance.
Like I said, there are a lot of reasons to limit CO2 production…we should focus on those that have general consensus and move forward. Sure, you are not going to get radical change…but you need to start, and the more people you bring to the table, the better.
-
ORIGINAL: HamOnWholeWheat
How does citing the fact that temperatures were warmer in the past invalidate that the claim that we’re currently in a warming trend with possible man-made contributions? Nobody is arguing that manmade causes are the ONLY contributers to global climate change. Citing the warmer period in the dark ages doesn’t disprove anything. It was also a lot warmer when the Earth was taking on its solid form from its original molten mass during planet accretion 4.7 billion years ago. Does that somehow invalidate the theory of man’s contribution to climate change?
To understand why you have this wrong, you must realize that Mann’s paper (circa 1998) which gave us the hockey stick graph is the logical underpinning for the anthropomorphic warming argument.
The basic logic (essentially Mann’s hypothesis) is: recent warming trends over past 150 years markedly exceed natural variation over past 2000 years. This phenomena corresponds with industrialization and massive CO2 emissions. Ergo, CO2 emissions account for observed increase in temperatures.
The potential fallacy of this logic is the Medieval Warming Period. Mann’s paper discounted this (this led to Steven Mcintyre to cry foul and subsequent congressional hearings on the subject). Without including the medieval warming period, you get the hockey stick appearance of average global temperatures over the past two millenia. However, if you include the medieval warming period, then you lose the hockey stick and warming over the past 150 years is no longer an anomaly. Therefore, you cannot necessarily conclude increased CO2 emissions have caused the observed changes over the past two centuries.
Hopefully this helps clarify things a little bit.
-
So a patient comes in with chest pain, and its determined to be noncardiac in origin, likely msk. 10 years later they come back, very similar chest pain. You’re tempted to say that this chest pain is likely their baseline, until you hear they’ve been drinking and smoking at an unprecedented level over the past 10 years.
Does this mean that the chest pain is insignificant because it has a precedent? No, because the patient has changed the environment that produced the chest pain drastically. So you can’t attribute the pain to be a normal variant until you investigate it. Right?
Your argument seems to be “Warming in the dark ages was almost certainly nonanthropogenic, therefore the current warming is also almost certainly not.” Do you honestly think that’s a logical conclusion?
-
ORIGINAL: HamOnWholeWheat
So a patient comes in with chest pain, and its determined to be noncardiac in origin, likely msk. 10 years later they come back, very similar chest pain. You’re tempted to say that this chest pain is likely their baseline, until you hear they’ve been drinking and smoking at an unprecedented level over the past 10 years.
Does this mean that the chest pain is insignificant because it has a precedent? No, because the patient has changed the environment that produced the chest pain drastically. So you can’t attribute the pain to be a normal variant until you investigate it. Right?
Your argument seems to be “Warming in the dark ages was almost certainly nonanthropogenic, therefore the current warming is also almost certainly not.” Do you honestly think that’s a logical conclusion?
You are wasting your time. This is how the wingers here form an argument –
1. Start with the conclusion you would like to reach. In this case helpfully provided by the OP with “THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!”
2. Seek out information sources that reinforce your predetermined conclusion. There are tons of winger websites out there, run by useful idiots and paid for by “think tanks”.
3. Claim to be informed and have links at the ready to prove, [u][i][b]PROOOOOOOO[/u]OOO[/i]OVE[/b], that your conclusion, reached before the search for information began, is correct.This pathetic rigamarole is very easily found in the HRC debate (starting conclusion “Gubmint fails at everything!” instead of “our country will be bankrupted by our current system”).
-
ORIGINAL: HamOnWholeWheat
Your argument seems to be “Warming in the dark ages was almost certainly nonanthropogenic, therefore the current warming is also almost certainly not.” Do you honestly think that’s a logical conclusion?
No. Again, I point out to you the work of Mann et al. It has largely been his work used by proponents of AGW to declare the issue settled.
Let me try again. It has been hypothesized that large amounts of CO2 emission over the past 150 years has led to unprecedented increases in the mean global temperature.
To prove this hypothesis, one must show that global climate over the past 150 years has significantly deviated from more remote climactic behavior.
If the data show no significant change in climate over extended periods of time, then one cannot conclude that elevated CO2 has caused recently observed upward trends in global temperatures (this does not imply that CO2 has no effect whatsoever on mean temperatures or climate, it just means it is not the primary causative agent of recently observed changes).
To use your example of chest pain, consider unstable angina versus longstanding stable angina. The hypothesis of AGW poses a similar question, namely does recently observed behavior of the global climate system truly represent significant change from past behavior.
If somebody presented with chest pain which had been going on for years and had not materially changed in frequency or severity, you would conclude that the latest episode of chest pain did not relate to a significant change in the status of their coronaries. But if they clearly have unstable angina then you are dealing with a different situation. It is imperative therefore to determine if the current chest pain significantly differs from prior episodes of chest pain.
Likewise, if the variation of mean global temperature has not significantly changed over the past several millenia (i.e. we include the MWP in the Mann hockey stick), then we cannot conclude recent increased atmospheric CO2 is major cause of recent climate alterations.
Simply put, we are asking “is the climate truly changing”. This is the crux of the debate.
Unfortunately it is very difficult to answer these questions because the data are so poor. Only recently have accurate data become available. Everything else is limited, particularly data obtained before the mid 19th century. For those more remote time periods you must use proxy data (i.e. tree rings and ice cores).
Again, you cannot simply assume the climate is changing in some unusual, unprecedented fashion. That is not logically consistent. You must first prove the climate is unequivocally diverging from prior behavior. This is what Mann’s hockey stick was purported to prove. It is only after you have proven this to be true that you can then move to the next question of “what is causing this change?”.
-
ORIGINAL: HamOnWholeWheat
So a patient comes in with chest pain…..
Your analogy is inappropriate. Chest pain is universally accepted to be an abnormal, pathologic state.
Whether the current climate is abnormal is unknown. It depends on what the climate has been like in the past. Again, this is the crux of the matter.
-
Nevermind. I’m arguing on the internet again. (* slaps forehead *)
-
No, really: seems to me the approach of the AGW proponents has been similar to what Nobody described earlier about this thread: approach the data with an a priori conclusion one would [i]like[/i] to substantiate (for various reasons) and look for said proof — conveniently overlooking contradictory findings and overemphasizing supportive.
Look, it can’t really be argued that the recent CO2 emissions don’t have an effect on the atmosphere, but there are other factors that may mediate or exacerbate –including only recently discovered, the role of the Sun — and so it would seem an almost impossible, or at least time-consuming and questionably-valuable use of our research dollars, to try to prove the relative risk from CO2.
I see no reason not to pursue the science, just as we also spend dollars on deep-space research whose immediate value to humanity is unclear. I don’t think our policy and political will to pursue it ought to be tied quite so tightly to a field of research that is clearly still in its infancy, while meantime (and of course depending on who you accept data from, specifically in the case of the Himalayan glacier retreat timeline… it’s the developers who are funding and promoting research that downplays the retreat, and consequent prioritization that ought to follow).
We have reasons to pursue ameliorization research and projects based simply on what we can observe real-time, without the need to rely on scientists from any corner of the debate. -
[b]”How exactly does one gain the title of Worlds leading climatologist? “[/b]
Well, just look at big Al Gore..he became an expert by having a briefcase and traveling more than 50 miles to get to the conference…
-
[b]Again, your ideology is outrunning your intellect.[/b]
Well I know almost nothing about Climate change and I admit that……………..I do not sit here and support information from either side as if it is 10000% factual just because Rush Limabaugh(A college drop out I may add) tells me what to think about a very complex science.
So what exactly is my ideology here? -
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
The problem is…the side where science doesn’t matter appears to be on the left…
i.e., stem cell research, and creation vs evolution.
Creation pretty much obliterates all science, does it not? -
[b].e., stem cell research, and creation vs evolution.
Creation pretty much obliterates all science, does it not?[/b]
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Don’t tell MISTRAD that -
ORIGINAL: garynuke
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
The problem is…the side where science doesn’t matter appears to be on the left…
i.e., stem cell research, and creation vs evolution.
Creation pretty much obliterates all science, does it not?Much of the right agrees with stem cell research. At most, you are talking about half of the conservative movement. I for one support stem cell research. As for creation vs. evolution…as far as I can tell, there are three total states where this has been made a true issue (though there are loud mouths anywhere). To call this the majority view of the right is ignorance.
As for the left….they want us to blindly accept everything they tell us, regardless of the science. It is exactly the same thing as the extremists on the right…except that in the left, it is MAINSTREAM. That is the difference. There is a religious tinge to the right, to be sure…but John McCain was pro stem cell research and certainly believed only in evolution.
Our current president believes global warming is an absolute, and there is no more discussion to be had…which is a RELIGIOUS, DOGMATIC BELIEF. It is not a scientific one. And that is by far the majority view of the left…simply look at yourselves.
So don’t talk to be about lack of scientific belief…there is plenty to go around, and plenty on the left.
-
[b]It is exactly the same thing as the extremists on the right…except that in the left, it is MAINSTREAM.[/b]
That is where we disagree. 2 points
1. BOth sides have extremist, the left has a smaller group of whackos than the right. On the right the whacko conservatives can actually carry a few primary states, I don’t think you see that on the left.
2. Each of group of extremist think anyone in the center is a whacko towards the other side. -
Totally disagree.
On the left, the wackos ARE the mainstream liberals…look at the religious devotion to absolute, nonquestioning belief in global warming. In that sense, even Obama is a wacko…he is not willing to even examine if the science is questionable or not. That is a religious-like belief. It is ok if you believe global warming is a problem…it becomes dogma when you say the other side is evil for not believing. And that is what MAINSTREAM liberals do with global warming. That is one of many examples.
-
[b]On the left, the wackos ARE the mainstream liberals[/b]
[b][/b]
Lets do this Who do you think are the Mainstream Liberals? And who are the Mainstream conservatives? -
Do you consider Union leaders and Union members as Mainstream Liberals?
-
Garynuke…on creation, the top two candidates, Romney and McCain, said they believe in evolution. Huckabee was the biggest person to talk about creationism. There is a ‘Palin’ wing of the party, no doubt…I don’t deny that. But let us turn it around. How many of the Democrats would have raised their hand if you asked, “How many of you think global warming is settled science, and how many of you think we need more science”. I bet everyone, including our current president, would have picked the former than the latter. Again, dogma.
Erad: I think when you talk about mainstream liberals/conservatives you have to differentiate between the public (who generally is not all that partisan) and the politicos (the hard core believers).
I think leadership of unions, the party leaders themselves, and most minority groups lead the liberal mainstream.
I think on the right, you clearly have fiscal and religious conservatives; certain (but not all) businesses.
When you talk about hard core of either party, they are not necessarily representative of their constituents. For example…1/3 of Democrats are PROLIFE. An amazing statistic. Outside of Casey and about 10 Dems in the House, are there any other prolifers in the Dem party?
When I was making my point about mainstream, what I was really talking about is the party apparatus itself. Can you find me one person in the Dem party leadership that doesnt believe that global warming is settled science? That no more debate should be had on it, and that anyone who wants to question its legitimacy is evil or stupid?
-
[b]I think leadership of unions, the party leaders themselves, and most minority groups lead the liberal mainstream. [/b]
[b][/b]
Okay Good I do to……..Now how do you think the United Mine workers feel about CO2 caps?
[b][/b]
[b][/b]
[b]I think on the right, you clearly have fiscal and religious conservatives; certain (but not all) businesses.[/b]Okay…..How do the Religious consrvatives feel about Teaching Evolution?
[b]Can you find me one person in the Dem party leadership that doesnt believe that global warming is settled science?[/b]
Yep the Leader of the AFL-CIO Rich Trumka -
The UAW leaders have been in favor of cap and trade, for example. So the unions are divided. Gettlefinger (Is that how you spell his name?) came out in favor of cap and trade last spring. Don’t know Rich Trumka, but will take your word for it. I think in the White House, and in Pelosi and Reid’s offices, you won’t find a single dissenting voice. So yes, I am willing to admit that there are a few voices, especially from coal producing states and some unions, but the power base still is very much dogmatic on the issue.
Religious conservatives are very divided. Hell, even a blowhard like Sarah Palin is divided. She said they should not teach creationism in an interview last month, should only teach evolution, should teach creationism only in relation to religious classes; that is what I believe. I think she is a pretty good example of a religious conservative, don’t you? GW Bush, a pretty conservative guy, had the exact same platform. So again, how many people really are pushing this creationism thing?and in
I live in the midwest, with a fair amount of religious conservatives…and I haven’t yet heard about a movement to talk about creationism in schools. Have seen it in Kansas and Nebraska, and probably a couple other places…but this is not a seriously big issue.
-
[b]I live in the midwest, with a fair amount of religious conservatives…and I haven’t yet heard about a movement to talk about creationism in schools.[/b]
I live in the midwest too and I hear it all the time.
But still I am curious who do you consdier Mainstream republicans and Main stream Democrats? -
I consider Main stream Republicans Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity and Glenn Beck.
I consider Main stream republican Politicians Mitch MCConnel, Senator Selby, Bob Corker
Main stream Talk show hosts are Ed Shultz and Chris Matthews
Main Stream Democrat Senators Are Rockefeller, Casey, John Kerry -
I wouldnt necessarily pick those exact people…but I think you are about right.
Limbaugh and Hannity speak for the the majority of Republicans…though I think they are much harsher than the average republican citizen. But policy wise, I think you hit the mark. Glenn Beck is not a republican. The guy spent the better part of a decade bashing Bush. I can’t categorize him. He is certainly right of center, but I would not call him a Republican. But otherwise, I generally agree.
As for politicians…McConnell sure. Corker? A new guy, but ok. Shelby? I don’t know about that one. I would pick, right now, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and Mike Pence in the House along with Beohner, and McConnell and Kyl in the senate…as they are the main leaders.
Democrats..frankly, if Schultz and Matthews is the lead liberals, that is pretty sad. I would pick newspaper guys first…like Paul Krugman. Matthews has gone crazy of late. George Stephanopolous maybe. I guess if you are trying to compare them to Limbaugh and Hannity, Rachel Maddow is probably more mainstream than most…and at least she is rational.
As for Dems…Casey as a mainstream? No prolife candidate is a mainstream Democrat. Sorry. I would have picked Kerry and Hillary Clinton before…Reid, Schumer and Durbin now. Rockefeller, being from a coal state, is certainly not mainstream.
As for the creationism thing…educate me. Can you show me some news stories of it being a thing in the midwest? Politically, I simply have not heard it, and am pretty involved in my kids public school.
-
[b] Schultz and Matthews is the lead liberals, that is pretty sad.[/b]
I classify Mainstream as the middle of the party. Equal number of people to the left and too the right of them. (Of course the far leftist are whacko’s as are the far rightist) As for Press People Matthews and Schultz are what most Democrats beleive on many but of course not all issues. I beleive they are in the middle of the democratic party. And I also beleive that Limbaugh and Hannity are Press people in the middle of the republican party.
The thing is the Democratic party is a lot broader and overall a little more accepting than the republican party. I mean Limbaugh and hannity want a scorched earth take no prisoners party………….. Matthews and Schultz at lest beleive in a little diversity.
-
Of course the overall point of this is that both parties have whack jobs……the republicans just have more.
-
[b]Democrats..frankly, if Schultz and Matthews is the lead liberals, that is pretty sad. I would pick newspaper guys first…like Paul Krugman. Matthews has gone crazy of late. George Stephanopolous maybe.[/b]
[b][/b]
My opinion is that Krugman Stephanopoloaus and Hillary Clinton are center left.
Again this points out the broad nature of the party. -
Your bias has clouded your already myopic view. Most would consider Rush and Hannity to be towards the right edge, not center. Your little straw man is that since Rush and Hannity (who many do not like and consider extreme) are center then there must be, by definition, half of the republican party even further to the right. They must be akin to Satan or Hitler or something equally distatseful.
Then you claim that Matthews is center. What a joke. -
[b]Most would consider Rush and Hannity to be towards the right edge, not center.[/b]
Fair enough then who is the mainstream of the Republican party
Never said I wasn’t bias but I’d wager with you that when the average Joe on the street is asked who speaks for the republican party……….Limbaugh and Hannity win the vote. -
[b]Your little straw man is that since Rush and Hannity (who many do not like and consider extreme) are center then there must be, by definition, half of the republican party even further to the right. They must be akin to Satan or Hitler or something equally distatseful. [/b]
[b][/b]
Pretty much correct as far as my thinking is concerned………………You have Olympia Snow on the Left side and You have timothy McVeigh types on the extremes……….Rush and Shawn are in the center. Again that is my opnion.
[b]Then you claim that Matthews is center.[/b]
Yep and you have a host of Blue dog democrats on the right and you have the whack job environmentalist and hard core PETA whackos on the other extreme.
Let me here who you think is in the middle of each party -
The creationism thing is a red herring that fits the stereotype the liberals want to pin on Republicans. Do I know creationists? yes, a few. Are they more likely to be Republican? Yes. Are they a significant number of Republicans? No. Is the Republican party encouraging this? No. Are prominent Republicans pushing this? No. The same goes for the birthers. I don’t think I have ever met a serious Republican who is a birther. The Liberals spend an inordinate amopunt of time trying to analyze Republicans, convincing themselvers that they must be birthers or religious zealots, just because they are conservative.
On the other side of the spectrun you have the global warming contingent. Up to very recently, this comprised the vast majority od Democrats. Every discussion was punctuated with the unshakiable confidence that this represented scientific fact. Any challenge to the underlying assumptions are met by derision. This IS a conviction issue in Democratic dogma. The same goes for Gitmo and torture. There are more Democrats who believe 9/11 was a government plot than there are birthers, yet we don’t hear much about this.
The liberal’s stereotypes of Republicans are reinforced by their echo-chamber press and their very rigid dogma. Their sibboleth is indistinguishable and unshakeable. -
[b]The creationism thing is a red herring that fits the stereotype the liberals want to pin on Republicans.[/b]
[b][/b]
How about the stem cell Fear mongers?
How about the BIrthers?And again this only my opinion. Lets hear yours
-
This is another funny thing about Repbulcian…..they are much more disciplined than democrats.
If they don’t have a tlaking point to follow, like the question that I just posed………they get defensive and attack.
Hey all I ask is who do you feel is the mainstream of your party and the other party……………….no need to get all defensive and emotional -
Like I said above, birthers are few and far between and are not the serious Republicans. As far as stem-cell research, that is not really a Democrat/Republican issue. I would guess that most Catholics are Democrats, yet most Catholics don’t support destroying fetuses for stem-cell research. The issue, as I remember it was the question of whether or not to fund stem-cell research with federal dollars. Given the somewhat reasoned opposition of some groups to stem-cell research, namely the Catholic church, The Bush policy probably struck the right balance. Since then this has been rendered a moot issue, because there are now other ways to develop stem-cell lines, without having to destroy fetuses.
I happen to think that stem-cell research is worthy science, but I can respect the fact that some people have an ethical opposition to this. I don’t think that they should be forced to fund something they are ethically opposed to.
-
Answer the question
Who is mainstream of the Republican party…..name names
Who is the Mainstream of the Democratic party…………Name names
What are you afraid……………a little un regurgitated thought never hurt anyone -
Well, wait.
If you are going to include McVeigh on the list…then we can go to extremes too. For example, if you say the Democrats are broad, then there is legitimate criticism that groups like ELF and the Weather Underground, are in fact, Democrats.
Go the the Communist Party website. They have endorsed everything Obama has said. Does that mean they are in the Democratic Party as well?
Most of the paranoia about 9/11 as an inside job? Iraq War for oil? That paranoia is mainstream, and from the left. On the right, the birthers are fringe. On the left, the truthers are in congress.
I would argue that neither party is broader than the other…and I at least have some evidence to prove it, except simple opinion like erad states:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/state-states-political-party-affiliation.aspx
Right now, Democrats have a slight edge (well, as of end of last year), In 2002 and 2004, Republicans had an edge. In other words, it shift back and forth.
Now, if you look at conservatives, they have been consistently the largest ideological group. There used to be conservatives in the Democratic Party…but really, no more. I would not call anyone in the Democratic party conservative…maybe moderate, but definitely not conservative. Lieberman comes the closest, and he is pretty liberal on social issues.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/conservatives-maintain-edge-top-ideological-group.aspx
So basically, you have a country that is pretty divided…and the elections show that. Sure, you have swing elections, but a President has not really won by a landslide since 1984, where the candidate has won every region of the country.
-
Speaking of wacko liberal terrorists:
[b]A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children – the youngest a third-grade boy – was a far-left political extremist who was obsessed with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.[/b]
Do you really want to associate these wackos to any political party? It is a double edged sword.
-
[b]If you are going to include McVeigh on the list…then we can go to extremes too.[/b]
[b][/b]
THat is the entire point of the discussion…..You pretty much claimed that The left was farther out there than the right(correct me if I misunderstood) I think the right is more dangerous than the left as far as violoent extremist but both sides have their share of whack jobs.
I am still waiting to hear who you dittoheads think are the mainstream figures of your party and the other party
Again If you don’t have a scripted set of talking points you guys can’t think. -
Trying to argue left vs right is peeing in the wind. It is all in the eyes of the beholder. I moved from San Francisco to Indiana at one point. I went from a conservative to a liberal without changing one point of view. What changed was the point of view of those around me. Because of this I realized that it is impossible to say who is liberal or conservative other the more extreme portions. I firmly believe that the majority of people are more centrist. The problem that I see is the parties are becoming more and more ruled by the extremes on both sides and abandoning the center. To some degree I feel that a large part of the current political unrest is because many if not most Americans feel that neither party speaks for them. By all accounts Bayh was a centrist. He is just the last in a long line of centrists to leave both parties. My biggest pessimism is that this will continue and nothing will get done. Things such as regulating derivatives which now even Greenspan says needs some regulation. Whether you believe in climate change or not, we do need to advance forward on energy from something other than hydrocarbon. We need this for cutting the influence of the middle east oil states if nothing else. Our economy is still shaky at best. We have to get the deficits under control. That will require higher taxes and cutting spending including entitlement programs. All of these are large and tough issues. They will never be solved by Washington unless both sides decide that governing is more important than being in the government.
-
It is a simple frickin question…………………What figures Media or politicians are the Mainstream of the Republican and the democratic parties.
It is amazing that no one from the republican side can step up and actually answer this question
Is it because —-
1. You don’t know
2. You all have to march in Lock step therefore everyone has to be the same, think the same and regurgitate the same
3. There is no talking points memo on this to quote or post a link too?
WTF is it. It is a simple question
-
I actually extensively answered your question already. If you can’t read, I can’t help you.
-
Excellent post, Raddoc. I think you summed up the frustration and anger of the American people, which I believe is not heard by either party: each gets wind of their disenchantment and instead of taking it as the shock to their sense of mandate it should act as, they use it to continue the partisan one-upmanship, focussed solely — really — on their own (party’s) political aspiration. The public is never heard.
Meanwhile out here where the air is clear, not fogged by the dreamy, heady psychosis that is Washington, we can see clearly the problems, often their solution, and how dire the situation is becoming.
We are really becoming, as Krugman said, not Rome at the end, but Poland…slowly stewing to death in bureaucratic paralysis.
I thank you for your When-in-Rome analysis of party affiliation, too. I’ve thought it was some wishy-washy character flaw, but now I see it’s a normal function of society (our surroundings help us define ourselves): I notice I become much more liberal in the company of raving, spitting rightwingers, whereas I grew up uncomfortably trying to hide conservative leanings in rebellion, I thought, against my ultra-liberal (SF Bay Area) surroundings.
All along, it’s been an instinct to moderate the extremes and argue for balance, so that we can accomplish lasting solutions that won’t (need to be) gutted and overturned by the next administration. -
[b]I actually extensively answered your question already. If you can’t read, I can’t help you.[/b]
I guess if you call that extensive I’ll give it too you, but I was mainly referring to the other minions.
-
So anyone else
Who is the mainstream of the republican party?
WHAT !!!!!!!!!!!! No talking points memo out their to guide your thinking? -
The November election will be interesting. With 84% of people thinking that Congress has not done enough. You would think that this would be boom for GOP, but unless thet can come up with specific plans to do something, they may not be helped. I think that the party that can define themselves as a party trying to do something will be better positioned. If there is switch of either House and/or Senate then what do the Dems do. They may just block all the GOP plans and claim that the GOP did nothing in 2012. Meanwhile we will continue to hurtle down the tracks to finicial diaster with huge deficits and inflation.
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
Garynuke…on creation, the top two candidates, Romney and McCain, said they believe in evolution. Huckabee was the biggest person to talk about creationism. There is a ‘Palin’ wing of the party, no doubt…I don’t deny that. But let us turn it around. How many of the Democrats would have raised their hand if you asked, “How many of you think global warming is settled science, and how many of you think we need more science”. I bet everyone, including our current president, would have picked the former than the latter. Again, dogma.
Early in the BO bid for POTUS, how many Repubs would have had questions about where BO was born? Eventually, the truth was settled (for most, anyway), and it was on the basis of evidence. Now that the validity of AGW is abundantly public, it is not fair to suppose what the Dems would have done had they known the current edition of affairs.
Most mainstream scientists would have held that AGW was beyond debate. They did, actually. If it weren’t for the knowledge that a group of dedicated scientists may well indeed have made up stuff, there would be no coherent debate, just a few folks with suspicions. LIke the WMD thing, bad data leads to bad decisions, but you cannot fault someone who made a bad decision based on bad data. One can only work with what they get.
To ignore evolution requires ignoring all data from every branch of science. To believe in AWG only requires a belief in the best data available at the time.
THAT is a huge difference. -
Fair enough. I make fun of creationists as much as the next person.
That said…which big time mainstream republican is a creationist? I mean, someone that actually holds political office? You may be able to answer that better than me. The biggest name I can think of is Huckabee…and he is a Fox anchor now.
The problem with the Dems I have is that they are STILL defending the AGW byline. So yes, I give you the benefit of the doubt before…but not today.
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
ORIGINAL: garynuke
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
The problem is…the side where science doesn’t matter appears to be on the left…
i.e., stem cell research, and creation vs evolution.
Creation pretty much obliterates all science, does it not?Much of the right agrees with stem cell research. At most, you are talking about half of the conservative movement. I for one support stem cell research. As for creation vs. evolution…as far as I can tell, there are three total states where this has been made a true issue (though there are loud mouths anywhere). To call this the majority view of the right is ignorance.
As for the left….they want us to blindly accept everything they tell us, regardless of the science. It is exactly the same thing as the extremists on the right…except that in the left, it is MAINSTREAM. That is the difference. There is a religious tinge to the right, to be sure…but John McCain was pro stem cell research and certainly believed only in evolution.
Our current president believes global warming is an absolute, and there is no more discussion to be had…which is a RELIGIOUS, DOGMATIC BELIEF. It is not a scientific one. And that is by far the majority view of the left…simply look at yourselves.
So don’t talk to be about lack of scientific belief…there is plenty to go around, and plenty on the left.
Do you remember the moment in the Rupublican debate where they were asked who believes in creation? Do you really think you’d have as many hands go up during the Dems debate? Honestly?
The more religious a person is, the more likely that they will believe the Biblical account of life on earth’s origins. By definintion (I think), Libs tend to be secular humanists. Conservative tend to be Bible thumpers. Not true in every case, to be sure, but the stereotype has an honest base. The majority of Conservative Republicans in this country are Christian. I concede your point that some Libs can overlook science when their emotions tell them to. But I cannot accept that this is not more prevalent in Conservatives.
But the problem remains, when can anybody trust science given the lapses we are slowly becoming aware of?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from DoctorDalai
[link=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html[/link]
Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing
There has been no global warming since 1995
[*]Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changesCase closed. It was all a lie. ALL OF IT. If you want to go green to starve our enemies in the Middle East, I’m all for it. BUT, our government had best NEVER EVER EVER again quote global warming/climate change as a reason to demolish the economy. If they do, they simply confirm who they are and what they want.
This is pretty much the same as finding the bones of Jesus. It wipes the religion of Climate Change off the face of the earth. Anyone who still [color=”#ff0000″][b][i][u]bbbbeeeeellllliiiiieeeevvvvveeessssss [/u][/i][/b][/color]is delusional.
Water off Floridas coast rises over 100°.
No such thing as global warming.[link=https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/us/florida-ocean-heat-coral-bleaching-climate/index.html]https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/us/florida-ocean-heat-coral-bleaching-climate/index.html[/link]
-
In 1989, the United Nations said we only had until the year 2000 to save the planet from global warming
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20200924233458/https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0]https://web.archive.org/w…f118ec99964ea547880cd0[/link]
-
Makes sense. Those consequences are now feels like 100-105 in the Ohio Valley.
-
Quote from acpce1
In 1989, the United Nations said we only had until the year 2000 to save the planet from global warming
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20200924233458/[link=https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0]https://apnews.com/articl…f118ec99964ea547880cd0[/link]]https://web.archive.org/w…f118ec99964ea547880cd0[/link]
And yup, looks like we missed the deadline since weve had record breaking heat globally.
Thanks for posting the ignored warning. The folly of whistling past the graveyard.
-
On July 20, 1930 the official all-time record temperature of 106F was recorded at Washington DC. An unofficial temperature of 110F was recorded on Pennsylvania Avenue the same day.
-
The six hottest July 26th’s in the US were 1930, 1936, 1914, 1934, 1940 and 1931. On July 26, 1930 it was 100F in Washington DC – one of eleven days that summer over 100F.
-
On July 25, 1936 it was 117F in Iowa, 116F in South Dakota, 115F in Nebraska, 114F in Kansas, 111F in Colorado and 110F in Missouri.
-
In 1936 or even the 1930s was there a Northern Passage in the Arctic Ocean in winter too? When did the Northern Passage open?
1 days high temp in a local town proves nothing.
You sound like the Texas bozo who brought in a snowball in winter proving there is no warming.
-
One temperature reading in Florida water proves nothing
-
Its amazing that man-induced climate change can cause
-droughts
-flooding
-fires
-blizzards
-hurricanes
-pandemics
-extreme heat
-extreme coldDont take my word for it. Look it up.
Very versatile, that man-induced climate change. Very Sciency.
Google any bad thing you can think of & some egghead tries to link it to the climate crisis
Try it. Google climate change and:
-Racism/sexism/homophobia
-Cancer
-Heart attacks
-Inflation
-Earthquakes
-Diabetes
-Poverty
-Crime
-Car accidents
-Suicide
-Drowning
-ANYTHING!!!-
Warmer waters make more hurricanes. Hurricanes cause worse floods when the ocean level rises. Yeah, that checks out.
-
Fact: There are not more hurricanes now then there were 100 years ago.
-
Fact: glaciers around the world are smaller than they were 100 years ago & some are gone.
Explain
-
Cow farts. Eat your bugs.
-
Hahaha, ROTFLMAO!
You are even a failed comedian!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Melting glaciers! That happens every summer!
Uh huh. Every summer glaviers disappear.
[link=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66334788]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66334788[/link]
-
South America, iln winter sees temperatures in the 90’s and 100º range.
Just like it normally has happened for centuries. Because there is no global warming, it’s just normal temperatures. Certainly not from burning fossil fuels.
Drill, baby, drill.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/08/02/southamerica-record-winter-heat-argentina-chile/]https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/08/02/southamerica-record-winter-heat-argentina-chile/[/link]Its the middle of winter in South America, but that hasnt kept the heat away in Chile, Argentina and surrounding locations. Multiple spells of oddly hot weather have roasted the region in recent weeks. The latest spell early this week has become the most intense, pushing the mercury above 100 degrees Fahrenheit, while setting an August record for Chile.
In Buenos Aires, where the average high on Aug. 1 is 58 degrees (14 Celsius), it surpassed 86 (30 Celsius) on Tuesday.
South America is living one of the extreme events the world has ever seen, weather historian Maximiliano Herrera [link=https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1686485331539820545]tweeted[/link], adding, This event is rewriting all climatic books.
The most extreme conditions have occurred in the southern half of the continent, and particularly in the Andes Mountains region.
Temperatures Tuesday rose past 95 degrees (35 Celsius) in numerous locations, including at elevations of about 3,500 to 4,500 feet in the Andes foothills. In some cases, the temperature crested above 100 degrees (38 Celsius) after leaping from morning lows in the 30s and 40s (single-digits Celsius).
Some places have even reached [link=https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1686505993037811712]all-time maximums[/link] surpassing summer temperatures, even though it is winter. This has occurred in locations with 20 to 30 years of climate data available, showing how exceptional this heat is compared with recent decades.
[b]Like [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/08/02/july-hottest-month-global-temperatures/?itid=lk_inline_manual_14]many other portions of the globe[/link], record heat has visited parts of South America repeatedly in recent weeks. The big difference from its northern neighbors is that its winter there.[/b]-
I read this article on the NASA Page that had an interesting take on why Temps were so out of whack this year. Not enough to fully draw conclusions but certainly worth the read.
[link=https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere]https://www.nasa.gov/feat…ater-into-stratosphere[/link]-
It’s not just water vapor in the air, it’s the ocean temperature rising after seemingly being stable which if course brought out the warming deniers to argue that since the ocean temperatures were not rising, it was proof of no warming. Despite glaciers melting in Northern and southern hemispheres, an open Northern Passage and diminishing Antarctic ice, not to mention 90+º temperatures in the Siberia and Alaska and thawing tundra everywhere.
Well now the oceans are warming and with increased ice melting pouring fresh water into the oceans threaten to disrupt the ocean currents changing the climate in unknown ways.-
climate experts on 2/7/23:
Lake Powell and Lake Mead are unlikely to refill for another 50 years – and would need SIX consecutive years of deadly atmospheric rivers to replenish
[link=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11719667/amp/Lake-Powell-Lake-Mead-unlikely-refill-50-years.html?ico=amp_articleInlineText]https://www.dailymail.co….=amp_articleInlineText[/link]
8/5/23:
Incredible satellite images shows how previously-drought stricken Lake Powell has risen by FORTY-FOUR feet thanks to historic winter storms
Earlier this year, experts said it was unlikely to refill for another 50 years after hitting its lowest level in decades due to droughts
Over the past year, however, Lake Powell has risen by about 43.85 feet, with photos from the European Space Agency’s Copernicus SENTINAL-2[link=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12375057/amp/Incredible-satellite-images-shows-previously-drought-stricken-Lake-Mead-risen-FORTY-FOUR-feet-thanks-historic-winter-storms.html]https://www.dailymail.co….ric-winter-storms.html[/link]
#TheScience
-
Perhaps you can share with us what percentage of full 43 feet represents?
-
Quote from acpce1
climate experts on 2/7/23:
Lake Powell and Lake Mead are unlikely to refill for another 50 years – and would need SIX consecutive years of deadly atmospheric rivers to replenish
[link=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11719667/amp/Lake-Powell-Lake-Mead-unlikely-refill-50-years.html?ico=amp_articleInlineText]https://www.dailymail.co….=amp_articleInlineText[/link]
8/5/23:
Incredible satellite images shows how previously-drought stricken Lake Powell has risen by FORTY-FOUR feet thanks to historic winter storms
Earlier this year, experts said it was unlikely to refill for another 50 years after hitting its lowest level in decades due to droughts
Over the past year, however, Lake Powell has risen by about 43.85 feet, with photos from the European Space Agency’s Copernicus SENTINAL-2[link=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12375057/amp/Incredible-satellite-images-shows-previously-drought-stricken-Lake-Mead-risen-FORTY-FOUR-feet-thanks-historic-winter-storms.html]https://www.dailymail.co….ric-winter-storms.html[/link]
#TheScience
Annnnd, your point about global anthropogenic climate warming is???
Missing?-
There is that more important point Frumi. However, this latest attempt to point out failures of climate scientists isnt even accurate on its face.
-
S. Matthew Liao, a “bioethicist” with ties to the WEF: Humans should be genetically modified to induce an intolerance to meat, in order to solve “climate change”.
“It turns out that we can use human engineering to help us address climate change… People eat too much meat, right? And if they were to cut down on their consumption of meat, it would actually really help the planet. But people are not willing to give up meat… We can use human engineering to make it the case that we’re intolerant to certain kinds of meat. That’s something that we can do through human engineering.”
[link=https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1690636535270367233?s=46&t=Rf5Slh6vTdZ1HlG6L2Fkcw]https://twitter.com/widea…Rf5Slh6vTdZ1HlG6L2Fkcw[/link]
S. Matthew Liao, a "bioethicist" with ties to the WEF: Humans should be genetically modified to induce an intolerance to meat, in order to solve "climate change".
"It turns out that we can use human engineering to help us address climate change... People eat too much meat,… pic.twitter.com/JXwWgoPYOG
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) August 13, 2023
-
Super interesting guy.
The thought that we might not be able to successfully mitigate climate change and might have to bio-engineer our way out of it is cool conceptual stuff.
—
I’m not sure where the breakthrough will come on meat, but I think it’s pretty clear that we can’t meet the demand for meat protein for the growing world middle/working class with our current livestock farming methods and the environmental/ climate damage they bring about.
Lab grown meat, underground farming with complete carbon capture, and yes, bioegineering all might have a place in the future.
link to a really interesting conversation with the author. It’s 10+ years old but still relevant.
[link=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/]https://www.theatlantic.c…climate-change/253981/[/link]
-
Quote from acpce1
S. Matthew Liao, a “bioethicist” with ties to the WEF: Humans should be genetically modified to induce an intolerance to meat, in order to solve “climate change”.
“It turns out that we can use human engineering to help us address climate change… People eat too much meat, right? And if they were to cut down on their consumption of meat, it would actually really help the planet. But people are not willing to give up meat… We can use human engineering to make it the case that we’re intolerant to certain kinds of meat. That’s something that we can do through human engineering.”
[link=https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1690636535270367233?s=46&t=Rf5Slh6vTdZ1HlG6L2Fkcw]https://twitter.com/widea…Rf5Slh6vTdZ1HlG6L2Fkcw[/link]
It would require an authoritarian ruler along the lines of Stalin or Mao (or Kim Jong Un for that matter) for something like that to happen. As long as we’re a democracy this goofy shit is just bozos on Twitter.S. Matthew Liao, a "bioethicist" with ties to the WEF: Humans should be genetically modified to induce an intolerance to meat, in order to solve "climate change".
"It turns out that we can use human engineering to help us address climate change... People eat too much meat,… pic.twitter.com/JXwWgoPYOG
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) August 13, 2023
-
John Kerry in 2009: In 5 years we will have the first ice free Arctic summer
-
dergon, you can be first in line for the meat intolerance induction CRSPR shot.
You authoritarians can take my steak from my cold dead hands.
-
BHE said: It would require an authoritarian ruler along the lines of Stalin or Mao (or Kim Jong Un for that matter) for something like that to happen. As long as we’re a democracy this goofy **** is just bozos on Twitter.
They do it slowly over time. Chip chip chip away. Like the fertilizer restrictions in the Netherlands.
And climate authoritarians like dergon enjoy fantasizing about scenarios like this, as you can see from his comment above.
-
-
Montana wins.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/14/us/montana-youth-climate-ruling.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/14/us/montana-youth-climate-ruling.html[/link]A group of young people in Montana won a landmark lawsuit on Monday when a [link=https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023.08.14-Held-v.-Montana-victory-order.pdf]judge ruled[/link] that the states failure to consider climate change when approving fossil fuel projects was unconstitutional.
The decision in the suit, Held v. Montana, coming during a summer of record heat and [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/maui-wildfires-hawaii.html]deadly wildfires[/link], marks a victory in the expanding fight against government support for oil, gas and coal, the burning of which has rapidly warmed the planet.
As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, todays ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generations efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos, said Julia Olson, the founder of Our Childrens Trust, a legal nonprofit group that brought the case on behalf of the young people. This is a huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate. More rulings like this will certainly come.
The ruling means that Montana, a major coal and gas producing state that gets one-third of its energy by burning coal, must consider climate change when deciding whether to approve or renew fossil fuel projects.
The case is part of a wave of litigation related to climate change that is targeting companies and governments around the globe. States and cities are [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/climate/climate-lawsuit-puerto-rico.html]suing companies like Exxon, Chevron and Shell[/link], seeking damages from climate disasters and claiming that the companies have known for decades that their products were responsible for global warming. And individuals are now suing state and federal governments, claiming that they have enabled the fossil fuel industry and failed to protect their citizenry.-
Climate change is mentioned in the constitution?
-
Yup
-
Lies.
-
Read it.
-
Please link the relevant part of the constitution which states that climate change must be considered when approving fossil fuel projects
(you wont, because you are lying and it doesnt exist)
-
frumious , you can be second in line for the meat intolerance induction CRSPR shot.
You authoritarians can take my steak from my cold dead hands.
-
Frumious article reads: As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, todays ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generations efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos
Hogwash propaganda:
[link=https://archive.is/20230731215510/[link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-hasnt-set-the-world-on-fire-global-warming-burn-record-low-713ad3a6]https://www.wsj.com/artic…rn-record-low-713ad3a6[/link]]https://archive.is/202307…rn-record-low-713ad3a6[/link]
WSJ, 7/31/23:
Climate Change Hasnt Set the World on Fire
It turns out the percentage of the globe that burns each year has been declining since 2001.
One of the most common tropes in our increasingly alarmist climate debate is that global warming has set the world on fire. But it hasnt. For more than two decades, satellites have recorded fires across the planets surface. The data are unequivocal: Since the early 2000s, when 3% of the worlds land caught fire, the area burned annually has trended downward.
In 2022, the last year for which there are complete data, the world hit a new record-low of 2.2% burned area. Yet youll struggle to find that reported anywhere.
-
Gish gallop attempt.
-
Gish gallop attempt.
Otherwise known as Brandolini’s law.
That’s all you have, acpce1. It’s all you ever had whether climate warming or COVID arguments.
BS
-
[link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-rules-montana-must-do-more-to-address-climate-change-25162c3a?mod=us_more_pos8]https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-rules-montana-must-do-more-to-address-climate-change-25162c3a[/link]
Montana must do more to protect the state and its residents from [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/july-2023-hottest-month-record-climate-change-5e5b3097?mod=article_inline]climate change[/link], a judge ruled Monday in a landmark decision that cited a state constitutional right to a clean environment.
State District Judge Kathy Seeley ruled [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-bellwether-climate-case-in-montana-seeks-more-action-under-state-constitution-88847825?mod=article_inline]in favor of a group of youth plaintiffs[/link] and invalidated a pair of laws prohibiting state agencies from considering the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions.
The degradation to Montanas environment, and the resulting harm to Plaintiffs, will worsen if the State continues ignoring GHG emissions and climate change, Seeley wrote.
A 1972 provision in Montanas constitution explicitly guarantees the right to a clean and healthful environment, but the clause had largely gone unenforced. The plaintiffs argued the states reliance on fossil fuels and their production was at odds with that constitutional guarantee.
The judge didnt lay out specific steps for the state to take in response to her ruling. Instead, her order opens the door for state officials to consider [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-temperatures-affect-human-body-11658262757?mod=article_inline]climate impacts[/link] in future policy decisions, including on energy and mining projects, or efficiency and emissions standards. -
Chrystia Freeland, WEF Board Member, and also Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, speaking to graduates at Northeastern University in Boston:
She questions whether or not Democratic societies can rise to the existential challenge of climate change.
Her implied answer is No, they cannot. Thats why we need authoritarian control.
GTFO
[link=https://twitter.com/theo_tj_jordan/status/1692598451928785286?s=46&t=Rf5Slh6vTdZ1HlG6L2Fkcw]https://twitter.com/theo_…Rf5Slh6vTdZ1HlG6L2Fkcw[/link]
Chrystia Freeland, WEF Board Member, and also Canada's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
Listen to these words very carefully. She spoke this to our graduates at Northeastern University in Boston. 🚨
H/t @shelley_curious pic.twitter.com/7Hz4oeR7RM
— Theo Jordan (@Theo_TJ_Jordan) August 18, 2023
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gen Z organizing – hopefully – to counter climate change since their elders have polluted the Earth.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/19/climate/young-climate-activists.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Climate%20and%20Environment]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/19/climate/young-climate-activists.html[/link]Like a growing number of young people, Kaliko is engaged in efforts to raise awareness about global warming and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, last year she and 13 other young people, age 9 to 18, sued their home state, Hawaii, over its use of fossil fuels.
With active lawsuits in five states, TikTok videos that mix humor and outrage, and marches in the streets, its a movement that is seeking to shape policy, sway elections and shift a narrative that its proponents say too often emphasizes climate catastrophes instead of the need to make the planet healthier and cleaner.
Young climate activists in the United States have not yet had the same impact of their counterparts in Europe, where Greta Thunberg has galvanized a generation. But during a summer of record heat, choking wildfire smoke and now a hurricane bearing down on Los Angeles, American teenagers and twenty-somethings concerned about the planet are increasingly being taken seriously.
Young people are helping organize a climate march in New York next month, during the United Nations General Assembly. And their force is being felt even in deep-red states like Montana, where [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/14/us/montana-youth-climate-ruling.html]a judge on Monday handed the movement its biggest victory to date[/link], ruling in favor of 16 young people who had sued the state over its support for the fossil fuel industry.
In that case, a lengthy fight resulted in a surprise victory that means, at least for now, that the state must consider potential climate damage when approving energy projects.
The fact that kids are taking this action is incredible, said Badge Busse, 15, one of the plaintiffs in the Montana case. But its sad that it had to come to us. Were the last resort.
Do you think I really want to be on a stand saying, like, I dont have a future, said Mesina DiGrazia-Roberts, 16, another of the plaintiffs in the Hawaii case, who lives on Oahu. [b]As a 16-year-old who just wants to live my life and hang out with my friends and eat good food, I dont want to be doing that. And yet I am, because I care about this world. I care about the Earth and care about my family. I care about my future children.[/b]
In the Hawaii case, the youths have [link=https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/62979ffa19b8082c7ecdf1ca/1654104084529/1+2022-6-1+Complaint-Summons.pdf]sued the states Department of Transportation[/link] over its use of fossil fuels, arguing that it violates their right to a clean and healthful environment, which is enshrined in [link=https://lrb.hawaii.gov/constitution/]the state Constitution[/link]. The state filed two motions to dismiss the case, but this month a judge [link=https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/64cc0e99fdace55853720881/1691094681788/08.03.23+Navahine+F.+v.+HDOT+Trial+Date+set.pdf]set a trial date[/link] for next year.
[b]Across the movement, there is an effort to combat climate nihilism, the fatalistic acceptance that nothing can stop runaway global warming. That sentiment, [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/climate/climate-change-ok-doomer.html]captured in the phrase OK Doomer,[/link] contributes to the slow pace of progress, they maintain.[/b]
[b]Enthusiasm for the climate movement is spreading in surprising ways. A group of young techno optimists who shun doomerism have [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/22/business/decarb-bros-climate-change.html]embraced the label of Decarb Bros[/link]. And among Republicans, millennials and members of Gen Z are far more likely than their elders to believe that humans are warming the planet and support efforts to reduce emissions, [link=https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/06/24/millennial-and-gen-z-republicans-stand-out-from-their-elders-on-climate-and-energy-issues/]according to the Pew Research Center[/link]. Overall, about 62 percent of young voters support phasing out fossil fuels entirely, [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/24/climate/willow-biden-climate-voters.html]according to Pew[/link].[/b]-
I feel like climate change cultists are now just trolling us. NOT The Babylon Bee:
Forbes: Bill Gates and other investors are betting Kodama Systems can reduce carbon dioxide in the air by chopping down and burying trees. Now if only Uncle Sam would get on board with tax credits, too.
[link=https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2023/07/28/chop-down-forests-to-save-the-planet-maybe-not-as-crazy-as-it-sounds/]https://www.forbes.com/si…as-crazy-as-it-sounds/[/link]
-
The media said climate change, not arson, was behind the fires in Greece. They lied. They have egg on their face now that 160 people have been arrested for arson.
Next level thinking. Climate change cultists causing wildfires and blaming climate change, to push their agenda.
-
Note the date.
How are those multi million dollar beachfront properties owned by climate cultists like Bill Gates, Al Gore, and the Obamas doing?
ENTIRE NATIONS could be wiped off the earth!
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 29, 1989UNITED NATIONS (AP) – A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco- refugees,’ ‘ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20200924233458/[link=https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0]https://apnews.com/articl…f118ec99964ea547880cd0[/link]]https://web.archive.org/w…f118ec99964ea547880cd0[/link]
-
[link]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00930-6[/link]
-
So you are arguing that there is no anthropogenic global warming? Or that predictions of consequences were premature or that there will be no consequences to warming at all?
Which?
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/climate/us-europe-heat-waves-climate-change.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces-shadow-lda-unique-time-cutoff-30_diversified&alpha=0.05&block=trending_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=310141632459547&impression_id=0d35af9c-2bf8-11ee-af7f-17bc1deb8ecf&index=4&pgtype=Article&pool=published-assets-db-4-ls®ion=footer&req_id=7215605062790674&shadow_vec_sim=0.04165236953892252&surface=eos-most-popular-story&variant=0_pers_engBandit]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/climate/us-europe-heat-waves-climate-change.html[/link]Some of the extreme temperatures recorded in the Southwestern United States, southern Europe and northern Mexico at the beginning of the month would have been virtually impossible without the influence of human-caused climate change, [link=https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/extreme-heat-in-north-america-europe-and-china-in-july-2023-made-much-more-likely-by-climate-change]according to research made public Tuesday[/link].
During the first half of July hundreds of millions of people [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/world/extreme-heat-wave-us-europe-asia.html]in North America, Europe and Asia[/link] sweltered under intense heat waves. A heat wave in China was made 50 times as likely by climate change, the researchers said.
World Weather Attribution, an international group of scientists who measure how much climate change influences extreme weather events, focused on the worst heat so far during the northern hemisphere summer. [link=https://www.nytimes.com/article/us-heat-wave-temperatures.html]In the United States[/link], temperatures in Phoenix have reached 110 degrees Fahrenheit, roughly 43 Celsius, or higher for more than 20 days in a row. Many places in southern Europe are experiencing [link=https://www.nytimes.com/article/europe-heat-wave-forecast.html]record-breaking, triple-digit temperatures[/link]. A remote township in [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/world/asia/record-heat-wave-flooding-climate-change.html]Xinjiang, China, hit 126 degrees[/link], breaking the national record.
Without climate change, we wouldnt see this at all, said Friederike Otto, a senior lecturer in climate science at Imperial College London and co-founder of World Weather Attribution. Or it would be so rare that it basically would not be happening.
But in a climate changed by fossil fuel emissions, heat waves of this magnitude are not rare events, she said.
