Climate change poll

[Oregon aloha]

Not only global cooling, global warming is what they called it until they couldn't support their theories so they renamed it climate change so we would follow along like sheep and support policies that helps the business that gave to their campaigns. It's easy for them to get scientists to support climate change as it always will be changing like it has for centuries. Not only people contribute to the change, but every animal and plant has an effect, but of course they leave that part out as it doesn't support their agenda.

 

[woodgeek]

Actually the scientists have been calling it Anthropogenic Global Warming = AGW for a long time now.

They also call it Ocean Acidification and Extinction.

And it doesn't matter what we call it.

 

[jharkin]

Not only global cooling, global warming is what they called it until they couldn't support their theories so they renamed it climate change so we would follow along like sheep and support policies that helps the business that gave to their campaigns. It's easy for them to get scientists to support climate change as it always will be changing like it has for centuries. Not only people contribute to the change, but every animal and plant has an effect, but of course they leave that part out as it doesn't support their agenda.

Who is this "they" that could not suport there theories? The "controversy' is mostly a fabrication of the conservative media and fossil fuel industry shills (i.e. Mr Junk Science Steve Milloy and others) Within the scientific community itself there is broader consensus about the broad strokes of climate science than there is about , say, the origin of the universe for example. In fact, many conservative groups that used to deny that climate change was happening at all have soften their position and accepted the reality and now shift to trying deflect responsibility of fossil fuels being the cause.

The funny thing is that scientists working off grant money are not getting rich doing climate science. The business that stand to make or loose tremendous amounts of money are the oil/gas/coal majors. Exxon Mobil made 300 billion dollars in revenuses last year... If the IPCC is hiding that kind of money to support climate scientists and advocates I'd like to know who to call - I haven't seen my cut!

Using the term "climate change" rather than global warming is simply a sop to people who cant appreciate that very small temperature differences over long time scales cause major changes in the ecosystem and think if they walk outside and its not 80 degrees on Christmas day it must be a hoax. (Climate x= Weather) Similarly this argument that it must be false because "they change their minds" is a red herring arising from a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method itself - good science evolves , revises, and updates as new evidence is found.

 

[Oregon aloha]

Who is this "they" that could not suport there theories? The "controversy' is mostly a fabrication of the conservative media and fossil fuel industry shills (i.e. Mr Junk Science Steve Milloy and others) Within the scientific community itself there is broader consensus about the broad strokes of climate science than there is about , say, the origin of the universe for example. In fact, many conservative groups that used to deny that climate change was happening at all have soften their position and accepted the reality and now shift to trying deflect responsibility of fossil fuels being the cause.

The funny thing is that scientists working off grant money are not getting rich doing climate science. The business that stand to make or loose tremendous amounts of money are the oil/gas/coal majors. Exxon Mobil made 300 billion dollars in revenuses last year... If the IPCC is hiding that kind of money to support climate scientists and advocates I'd like to know who to call - I haven't seen my cut!

Using the term "climate change" rather than global warming is simply a sop to people who cant appreciate that very small temperature differences over long time scales cause major changes in the ecosystem and think if they walk outside and its not 80 degrees on Christmas day it must be a hoax. (Climate x= Weather) Similarly this argument that it must be false because "they change their minds" is a red herring arising from a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method itself - good science evolves , revises, and updates as new evidence is found.

They are the polical force that is moving us in the direction of their choosing and labeling those that opose them as wrong and out of touch. It is all made up using science out of context. These folks are opposed to money that oil makes and belittle the oil producers and show them in a bad light. Rather than celebrating their success. It's all political.

 

[semipro]

"They" are the same people that:

1. Recognized a suspected association between smoking and lung cancer
2. funded related research,
3. performed the research,
4. publicized those findings,
5. educated the public on the risks of smoking
6. established regulatory safeguards and public policies
7. enforced/enabled civil liabilities against those that flaunted those policies or sought to deceive consumers
8. and arguably saved millions of lives by doing the above

Those of you that get your news from talking heads may think I'm referring to the government. I"m not.

BTW, if you apply that same level of "proof" that climate deniers want then "the correlation between smoking and lung cancer has not been established with sufficient certainty to require corrective action". (my quote, not from the article).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...sive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/ (yeah, more scientific gobbledygook)

 

[jharkin]

BTW, if you require that same level of "proof" that climate deniers want then "the correlation between smoking and lung cancer has not been established with sufficient certainty to require corrective action". (my quote, not from the article).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...sive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/ (yeah, more scientific gobbledygook)

Which is why its not surprising that prominent climate deniers like Milloy are also in the pocket of Philip Morris denying that smoking is harmful. Not to mention trying to tell us Asbestos is not bad either


follow the money..... follow the money....

 

[begreen]

I don't see the kind of global leadership that is going to work together for human interests. Currently the agenda is more corporate. That means critical changes like weaning off fossil fuels, dramatic reduction livestock raised for meat consumption, and a dramatic reduction in waste are not going to happen. Hope that changes but at this point leadership is lacking. I am not hopeful for a tech solution.

 

[jebatty]

I see two major kinds of tech solutions. One addresses the "symptoms" of climate change; for example, higher sea walls for rising oceans, altered genetics for plants that are productive with drier, wetter, warmer, or colder weather; drugs to deal with the spread of diseases; more funding to battle wildfires, flooding, etc; more construction to deal with outdated sewers and other infrastructure; and the like. This is like big pharma that likes to treat disease because of continuing demand for the product and huge profits, and not cure the disease. These symptomatic solutions are problematical because the patient still will die.

The second solution addresses the cause of climate change, which is mostly related to use of fossil sourced energy. While big profits also are here for the tech that produces carbon free energy, this tech faces big uphill battles because widespread adoption requires fundamental changes and threatens profits based on fossil carbon as well as profits from symptomatic "solutions" to climate change.

Both types of tech solutions are needed. My hope is that tech solutions that address the cause are the priority.

 

[woodgeek]

To the OP: the 'framing' of the poll is a false dichotomy and part of current right-wing talking points. The GOP is currently trying out a strategy of painting folks who are concerned about global warming as weak or disinterested in national security. CF: Karl Rove discussing Bernie Sanders after the debate.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/qotd-karl-rove.html

In reality the two things are not mutually exclusive, and have long been seen as synergistic. Renewable Energy is part of a AGW solution and reduces the need for foreign oil, etc.

 

[BrotherBart]

This will get people moving.

"Jim Salinger, a climate scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said climate change likely will cause a decline in the production of malting barley in parts of New Zealand and Australia. Malting barley is a key ingredient of beer."

 

[begreen]

Large scale loss of agricultural land is definitely a threat to national security, especially when it affects beer.

 

[begreen]

Good po

To the OP: the 'framing' of the poll is a false dichotomy and part of current right-wing talking points. The GOP is currently trying out a strategy of painting folks who are concerned about global warming as weak or disinterested in national security. CF: Karl Rove discussing Bernie Sanders after the debate.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/qotd-karl-rove.html

In reality the two things are not mutually exclusive, and have long been seen as synergistic. Renewable Energy is part of a AGW solution and reduces the need for foreign oil, etc.

Good point. Changed wording on security to be more neutral.

 

[begreen]

“This isn’t only about global food security; it’s about global security – period.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/climate-change-food-security-key-global-stability-kerry-says/

 

[semipro]

Where is the choice:

I can't wait for the climate to change in a month so I can start a fire and convert a high carbon fuel into a gas and water vapor!

You mean "weather" rather than "climate" don't you?
I get the wordplay but the differentiation is key to the understanding of AGW. Still far too many confuse the two.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

You mean "weather" rather than "climate" don't you?
I get the wordplay but the differentiation is key to the understanding of AGW. Still far too many confuse the two.

climate
[klahy-mit] /ˈklaɪ mɪt/

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

 

[Lumber-Jack]

This is an interesting video that deals with historical and predicted future CO2 levels and it's effects it might have on Earth.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[EatenByLimestone]

I just spent the 2nd weekend rewiring and insulating the family cabin. In all of the stud bays there is now 2" closed cell foam with a radiant barrier cut to fit and then foamed around for a perfect air seal. Last night it dropped down to 25 and I cooked myself out of the place with a 1 cubic foot stove. I had to open a ceiling vent to let the heat out. It's going to be a great winter of ice fishing! Provided it gets cold enough for the lake to freeze and all that. You never quite know what to expect with those computer models and weather forecasting. Maybe they will be wrong and this will be the year without any snow! Except it was snowing yesterday for a bit. Well, maybe there won't be any more snow. Then it will just be open water fishing. Oh the horror!

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Oh yeah, I just opened one of the few remaining bottles of "Cold Snap" left from last year to celebrate the impending season of temperate weather.

 

[Snagdaddy]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...ist-persecuted-for-debunking-climate-hysteria

The few scientists that have the guts to break with the official narrative of climate change are persecuted. See the above article for one example.

The central theme of the United Nations is that of overthrowing the autonomy of the nation-states and replacing that with a global government. This can be seen within all of the U.N. policies. The meme of climate change fits into this plan. The U.N. solution to climate change resembles a global wealth redistribution. The problem with their plan is that it will further impoverish the poor by cutting off their resources.

When the money is followed, it leads to the City of London, which is the financial district in England, otherwise known as, "the city within the city". It leads back to funding by our federal government....funding that was taken from us in order to support pre-ordained conclusions. Who is fool enough to go up against the machine? Most scientists are not.

 

[semipro]

climate
[klahy-mit] /ˈklaɪ mɪt/

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

Thanks. Exactly, "averaged over a series of years" not month to month.[/QUOTE]

 

[begreen]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...ist-persecuted-for-debunking-climate-hysteria

If coastal cities flood and crops fail, then the poor will bear the brunt of climate change.

Not that that source might be extremely biased. The New American is entirely owned by the John Birch Society. This thread is heading to the can.