Climate Change Still Denied?

Yeah, except that there's a substantial difference between murdering people who you consider to be inferior for no particular gain, and trying to not pollute and ruin the planet that we live on.

 

Yeah that's why it happen...keep saying that to yourself and you might believe it one day.

 

If we can change the rotational speed of the planet by our activities on the surface, why is it so hard to fathom climate change precipitated by human activity?

 

Uhhmmm, I think maybe you need to get 3 pairs of glasses, because even with six eyes you are apparently blind to the science.

 

If we know that CO2 causes increases in temperature (we do) and we know that our civilization is spewing out a lot of CO2 (it is) then it's really just a matter of logic to conclude that we are increasing the temperature of our planet. Due to the volatile nature of climate, one will still see extremes of cold, this does not disprove the basic high school chemistry problem here.

Next time you are in rush hour, look around you. Really look. Smell that lovely aroma. Take that square 100 meters that is visible to you, and multiply it by about 100,000,000. Now imagine that spewing that lovely odor and toxic fumes every second, of every day, of every month, of every year, for about the last 100 years. You will still fall DRAMATICALLY short of the real amount of toxic shit we are spewing into our eggshell of an atmosphere. This is just a mental exercise with numbers rounded WAY down, by many *orders of magnitude*.



If you do not see a problem when you combine that mental exercise with a picture of our atmosphere from space, then you are truly lost.


Ps. Political parties *do not equal* political stances; ie, the democrats are REALLY not leftists at all, people who call them "marxists" or "socialists" need to take a history 101 class. They are really still quite centrist and even very much right wing in many of their policies. Same with republicans, they have many "socialist" policies which benefit the richer portions of society only. Just an annoyance I always come across in these conversations. Just because a certain political party did not win an election, does not mean the population would not support certain policies from a certain direction of the political spectrum. You really think if americans could get access to true socialist policies which strengthened the middle class enormously and dealt a blow to the corporocrats and banking cartels, they would not leap at the opportunity? It's unfortunate that so much media is controlled by vested interests for wealth and the status quo or there would be actual change.

 

Perks to corporations as in the form of subsidies and tax breaks.

Over 500 billion is spent globally on subsidies for fossil fuel, (2011) and only 86 billion for renewable energy.

According to Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the International Energy Agency without a phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, we will not reach our climate targets. (wiki)

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/

 

lol.

I am forcibly reminded of the "stoners against prop 19" websites shit that killed california's legalization ballot initiative.

It's a desperate sounding pseudo-scientific political ad.

Also, I think it's interesting that I remember individual claiming that he didn't follow off-site links in order to avoid commenting on a ted talk on youtube that I linked (because, of course, it showed him to be totally wrong), but he liked that post by vance that cotains nothing more than an off-site link - and one that's considerably less credible than a ted talk.

What is that site's motivation? Who paid to make it? The design is clearly not about science, as much as being very simple and bright and accessible to non-scientific people, with a design and overall impression that would imply credibility to the science-naive internet user who stumbles on it.

 

A few things about this theocratic scum Dr. Roy....

Roy Spencer is on the nine-member board of the anti regulation, Scaife- and Bradley-funded Marshall Institute, though he appears not to disclose this affiliation on his.website.

Though he is one of the few anthropogenic global warming deniers with any climate science credentials, Spencer is also an active advocate for Intelligent Design over evolution, and argued in 2005 that its teaching should be mandatory in schools. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that is based on a "Biblical view" rather than science. As a defender of "Intelligent Design" creationism, Spencer has asserted that the scientific theory of evolution is really just a kind of religion."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

 

Clearly that website is more credible than NASA and scientific American.

What's the point in promoting an idea, in this case climate change denial, if all you have is flimsy websites? And then on top of it ignore everything that disputes said idea? Just go back and take a look over just a few threads and see who it is who consistently ignores criticism they can't address.

 

I'm really not aware of anyone denying that climate changes. There appears to be many unanswered questions being asked which are being/have been ignored/avoided as they do not support a political agenda. In this case it seems to be the alarmists vs the moderates, one group who claims to irrefutably have all the answers denigrating those who ask additional questions to which they cannot provide irrefutable answers. All the while, climate continues to do what it has done since the Earth was created, change. And that, is change I can believe in.

And Roo, I liked the post by Vance because I had previous knowledge of what Dr. Roy Spencer had said and if the desire is to acquire scientific facts, why are those who ask questions or present views that look deeper into a very complex subject constantly put down, denigrated, and ignored. The issue has become more of a political than a science issue.

 

"A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen." - Winston Churchill

 

Since by "alarmists" you're referring to those who are agreeing with 99% of climatologists, which points has that group ignored?

Strangely you seem to be referring to those who deny man made climate change as the "moderates" (how transparently self serving of you), that is to say the people who only accept sources which have either a blatant political agenda (I.e. owned by News Corp) or directly paid by fossil fuel interests. I mean you can keep throwing out these labels but it doesn't change the fact neither you nor anyone else in the denial camp has put up any credible sources or science in support of your position.

 

By alarmists I'm referring to those who make catastrophic short term predictions which fail to occur.

By moderates, I am referring to those who continue to ask questions. Science is not, or at least should not be a democratic process, and its' possible for 100% of the experts to be wrong, especially if all the questions are not answered.

Your insinuation that I have/am denying that climate is changing is totally incorrect. I simply am not certain we fully understand why it is changing and if the change is bad or good for some or all of us.

A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members didn't result in a 99% agreement as seen thrown about so frequently, but did find that about 44% of conservative and 94% of liberal members agreed that there is a warming trend due to human activities AND that those with a more liberal political orientation view it as harmful rather than beneficial.

Would you propose it be put on a ballot or would it be more rational to seek answers to questions being asked by the so called 1% who it would appear are a larger number than suggested? Their questions are the points you asked about being ignored.

 

Which questions? I mean here we are talking about the science but at the end of your post the questions you pose are not scientific at all. Its as if you're being intentionally evasive by talking out both sides of your mouth.

We understand human activity is having a warming effect that is well documented. We knew this will cost billions of dollars in damage and negatively affect millions of lives. Of course we won't know the full effects for certain until they have all happened, but prudence dictates decisive action.

Not really sure why you think this is relevant since not all meteorologists study climate in the sense we are discussing here. What is relevant is the amount of peer reviewed papers that are published on the subject over the past several years as well as the opinion of climatologists who deal with this issue specifically.

What questions are you talking about? I think it's a little silly I need to ask that a second time. I mean there really haven't been any questions asked, just a link to a Murdoch rag, another link to a website which doesn't seem to have ties to any news or scientific organization, and a lame, poorly thought out comparison between two magazine covers (the poster who put that graphic up had not even read the contents of either issue).

 

I'm not really interested in getting answers on this forum, but only in having those who you call the 1%, having their questions answered. As climatology is not an area in which I have worked I don't care to enter into a debate on a political forum with others who have no greater knowledge than myself. I prefer to allow the so-called experts to ask and answer each others questions and hope that by doing so they will arrive at correct answers.

All I am promoting is getting all the questions answered, scientifically, rather than politically.


FINIS

 

The 1% who spent hundreds of millions of dollars for the sole purpose planting denial in the well established science? I mean you say you want scientific answers but those answers likely already exist; the side that continually plants doubt is indeed the 1% because of a blatant conflict of interests.

I'm curious why you seem to think appeasing the curiosity of a few rich folks in this matter is so important when the science you claim to be interested in has already spoken so clearly.

Questions likely already answered, hence why you refuse to actually post them here and abruptly fled the conversation. At least you're consistent.