Obama dire climate report more certain than ever

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: BlueMule
Am I the only "liberal" who suspects that the "conservative" position regarding climate change revolves around their fear for their wallet?

LOL

And perhaps rightly so.

The Liberals are cleaning people out with tax after tax after tax.

Yes and people paying the lowest taxes in decades proves that. The taxes of today are a joke compared to how they were just a few decades ago.

a reply to: amazing

You make far too much of this by calling it a "conspiracy"

Its simply people trying to make a living in a field that is not normally well funded.

Don't forget the "ice age" scare of the 1970's. The very same people were absolutely convinced that we would have glaciers in Chicago. It was at the point where there was talk of geo-engineering a solution by spreading carbon black on the artic tundra to attract the sun and melt the ice.

The reason given for the ice age was man-made particulates were blocking out the sun.

Don't forget - there is only a "theory" that global warming is happening because of anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide. There is no crime in discussing a theory, now is there?

If governments and individuals happen to make humongous profits by supporting a "theory" - well that is not their fault, is it?

Let me ask you - is there any kind of risk of retribution on these scientists, governments, politicians, environmental protection groups? Will any of them have to answer for anything - if in 20 years, the global warming theory is proven to be false?

Tired of Cold Freaks

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
Climate change. I despise the term, because it's inaccurate at the very least.

We are experiencing record COLD. Even the 'climate change scientists' that were sent to the pole to study the ice levels got stuck in what? Heat? No RECORD ICE. Subsequently, the ice breaker sent to get them had troubles.

YOU in the US are experiencing record cold whilst we in the UK have had a record wet mild winter. Why?....because the jet stream has changed that's why. They cannot say for sure if the changes in the jet stream is linked to climate change....yet.

However, it is typical of a denier to pick on a record cold winter in one particular area of the planet NOT the whole planet DUH!!!!as proof that global warming isn't happening.

I'm not sure why anyone believes a tax can help the climate. What needs to happen is to take that part out of the debate. To do this, have someone propose a different option to reduce our footprint, and show why we cannot buy our climate. Is this a tax to offset the rich who spew this stuff out? Never mind - it probably is.

What big companies would support an alternate way to taxing us to a cleaner world? If we can get to that point we can stop seeing a denial of the bigger problem and get on with a solution. Clean air is good regardless of what scientists say so why does it have to be all or nothing, (and someone making a buck off of being good to the earth)?

a reply to: Dianec

No one has yet answered my question!

When has climate change NOT happened?

It is clear that at some time, the artcic was a rain forest. we know this by the amount of oil in the area. Then it became a ice desert. That is climate change. It happened long before the dawn of the industrial age. And whatever mammals were around then, either moved away or managed to survive.

So which reality are you trying to preserve? The arctic as a rain forest or the arctic as an ice desert???? Either way - do you think you will win out over mother nature?

When did carbon dioxide - an essential component of the earth's atmosphere and and absolutely necessary for plant growth become a "pollutant"?

Historically, periods of warming have been very very kind to man. Food became plentiful. Its ice ages that caused hardship.

Tired of Control freaks

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Well - if its global warming you want to discuss - please explain why its only the northern hemisphere that is actually warming?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It is clear that at some time, the artcic was a rain forest. we know this by the amount of oil in the area. Then it became a ice desert. That is climate change.

When you were in school did they ever teach you about plate tectonics?

Have you ever noticed that if you look at a map of the world the continents look as if they could have fit together at one time? That is because they once did. Here take a look.

You see the continents were not always where they are right now and the organisms that died to form that oil died a very long time ago. So it is true at one time the land that is the Arctic we know today once had lush forests on them however that land wasn't where it is now.

Oh and this chart may be helpful to you in understanding how toxic levels of co2 can have an effect.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

But you are implying that they are all being funded by special groups or bribery, basically. And you're also implying that they're all Climate scientist that think this way when you say a small not well funded group. You're still describing a conspiracy. Remember that the 70's were 40 years ago and this is a whole new group of people for the most part. These aren't the same people that said we were due for an ice age and that theory never had the acceptance and concensus that Man made global warming has today. It is not comparable in any way.

Why Pays Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye...just saying. You're still looking at this the wrong way.

I do see what you are saying,but if you really look at it in a big picture sort of way, you'll see that this is serious.

Editing to add a small snippet on Global Cooling from Wikipedia. Not time to cut and paste more right now, but that's basically what you'll find if you search for it.

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]

a reply to: Grimpachi

Exactly my point - the earth changes - it always has! Go ahead, try to stop it, I double dog dare you!

BTW, notice how it started as global cooling in the 70's, changed to global warming and is now called climate change?

So if your theory doesn't work , just change the name of the theory.

climate change will happen. if the globe is warming (its not - the southern hemisphere is cooling) because of the use of petro-chemicals, that it is TOO LATE TO STOP IT. Mother Nature will do what mother nature will do.

Mankind will survive (or we will not) but the earth will still be here!
Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Grimpachi

Exactly my point - the earth changes - it always has! Go ahead, try to stop it, I double dog dare you!

BTW, notice how it started as global cooling in the 70's, changed to global warming and is now called climate change?

So if your theory doesn't work , just change the name of the theory.

climate change will happen. if the globe is warming (its not - the southern hemisphere is cooling) because of the use of petro-chemicals, that it is TOO LATE TO STOP IT. Mother Nature will do what mother nature will do.

Mankind will survive (or we will not) but the earth will still be here!
Tired of Control Freaks

But what you're saying in this post is...."Scientists aren't smart enough to take into consideration what we're saying and are posting here. If only they (Scientists) were smart enough to listen to me and all the other global warming deniers and take all of this in. If only they realized that the earth changes and has for billions of years before man was here, and if only they realized that the earth's climate changes and has changed in the past despite what man has done and is doing and without man here."

I've got news for you, Scientists DO and have taken that into consideration.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

As long as you get that there were once forests in certain areas because they were once positioned closer to the equator then I believe I have helped you understand the situation a little better.

I don't want to bog you down with TMI, but I will assure you climate scientists have already taken your questions and many more into consideration before releasing their conclusions.

a reply to: amazing

LOL - so who was punished for the global cooling generation of scientists that were wrong? And who will take responsibility if the current generation of scientists are also wrong?

All these scientists are doing is proposing a theory and requesting funding to prove or disprove the theory.

It is governments, politicians, environmental groups, alternative energy industries, and outright charlatons like Maurice Strong and Al Gore, who are raking in the dough by proposing unworkable solutions.

Take bio-fuel - nice solution, we will grow out fuel. Until someone finally figures out that biofuel takes a litre and half of petro-fuel to produce 1 liter of biofual. Until its proven that biofuel is more polluting that clean-burning gasoline, until people start to starve because its economically more lucrative to grow biofual than food. Until forests get cleared to grow more biofuel and the population gets bilked at the pump because biofuel is more expensive.

Take the alternative energy industry - nice idea - harness renewable energy sources. Until someone figures out the the energy is more expensive because people want a 10 year return on their capital investment. that renewables are unreliable and require a co-energy imput to make up for the downtime. Until people realize that a stable civilization cannot survive with an unstable energy source.


Or how about carbon credits - money paid to undeveloped countries from developed countries for the "social cost" of global warming. Great but it ended up with poor people in one country paying other countries to have unstable economies. A kind of global welfare scheme.

All of these are great ideas but were touted as the cure-alls to get us to subsidize the costs - and who made the profit?????? And who lost the money??????

And when all of these people are making money - who is going to stand up and say "hey folks - we were wrong. The globe stopped warning over 17 years ago". Heck NO!!!! Lets keep that money coming! Now lets just call it "climate change instead"

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: amazing

Before you start telling me that scientists "have taken this under consideration" - please explain how the MANN hockey stick graph turned out to be a hoax with a whole century of temperature records relying on a single tree slice?

Scientists are no longer in control of what they can or cannot say. The IPCC is now in control with heavily censored reports that are nothing more than doom porn.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: amazing

Before you start telling me that scientists "have taken this under consideration" - please explain how the MANN hockey stick graph turned out to be a hoax with a whole century of temperature records relying on a single tree slice?

Scientists are no longer in control of what they can or cannot say. The IPCC is now in control with heavily censored reports that are nothing more than doom porn.

Tired of Control Freaks

So you also said "so who was punished for the global cooling generation of scientists that were wrong?" but that was only a small handful of scientists. That view never had scientific consensus. It was never mainstream. It was one of those pop culture things.

Global warming is different with nearly all scientists agreeing. I'm quite certain that nobody on God's earth could censor Neil DeGrass Tyson or even Bill Nye for that matter. And that's just two prominent scientists/Science pundits. Yes I knew Bill Nye isn't a real scientist. And People like Degrass Tyson aren't talking about the MANN Hockey stick graph or Al Gore. Onlly Deniers bring up Al Gore. I've never even watched an inconvenient Truth and no nothing about the Mann graph other than it's supposed to show rising temps. What you are railing against here isn't science but what the government's are proposing to do to save us. Two separate issues. I own a business and I also manage a family. I can tell you that the first step in living the good life and overcoming problems is first recognizing that there is a problem. LOL

You can't go around with your head in the sand. Can you? And why keep bringing up the really really small global cooling crowd? it was like a handful of scientists. it doesn't prove anything.

originally posted by: amazing
Wow, there is a lot of ignorance in this thread. LOL

I quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson here.

We just can’t seem to stop burning up all those buried trees from way back in the carboniferous age, in the form of coal, and the remains of ancient plankton, in the form of oil and gas. If we could, we’d be home free climate wise. Instead, we’re dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate the Earth hasn’t seen since the great climate catastrophes of the past, the ones that led to mass extinctions. We just can’t seem to break our addiction to the kinds of fuel that will bring back a climate last seen by the dinosaurs, a climate that will drown our coastal cities and wreak havoc on the environment and our ability to feed ourselves. All the while, the glorious sun pours immaculate free energy down upon us, more than we will ever need. Why can’t we summon the ingenuity and courage of the generations that came before us? The dinosaurs never saw that asteroid coming. What’s our excuse?

I'll also use my latest argument. What is more likely? A. The earth is warming and there is Scientific consensus (meaning not only climate scientists but among all scientist that it is man made and we are in for dire consequences. or B. Every single Climate Scientist in the world and all of their millions of support staff many of them with Doctorates and PHDs themselves and Every single other scientist in the world is in on the biggest conspiracy of all time and or totally inept and not understanding basic principles of science?

Occam's Razor and common sense would tell me that A is the correct answer.

Taken a step further, many of the ignorant people on this thread who are denying science and want to take us back to the stone age aren't really arguing against Man Made Global Warming, but deep down in their hearts if they are really honest it's our responses to this problem that they are afraid of. So let's be honest and if you are really that against science then you should throw your computers away. Holy Cow!

Editing to add that...do you really think that Climate Scientists don't take into consideration out entire climate history going back billions of years ago and through all of the ice ages with ice core samples and all kinds of other data and research? Do you also think that they forgot about the Sun? The other planets and all of the other crap you guys keep spewing forth about..well what about the ice ages..explain that! LOL

Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Is this for real ??

Or is it too cheap to make money from ?

What does the Science/Banker complex say ?

A relatively low-cost means of converting carbon dioxide into methanol has been developed by researchers from Stanford University, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, and the Technical University of Denmark.

Low-Cost Methanol From Carbon Dioxide — Relatively Cheap Conversion Method Developed

a reply to: xuenchen

Thank you for finding that article. That is the process the Navy is developing to suply fuel their aircraft and ships. Currently due to nuclear energy cost it would come in at about $6 dollars a gallon but nuclear is an expensive energy source if geothermal was used then that price would drop drastically.

It converts seawater to liquid fuel and acts as a carbon capture sink when used in conjunction with existing emissions equipment on cars.

We could literally turn the carbon clock back with that and lower our current energy cost.


This thread outlines the possibilities.
Possible Future of Energy?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I will answer your question then - climate change has been happening forever. No one is denying that. I'm not sure what you mean by trying to preserve a state of reality.

You say that we cannot stop its acceleration, and anything we would do would be too late anyway so let Mother Nature do her thing. Sure thing - I'll join the others who think like that and use/burn styrophome, throw my soda cans into the ocean, and waste as much energy as possible because Mother Nature will figure it out and it's all about playing it safe with my wants and needs today rather than worrying about my kids' future.

What kind of logic is it that tells us that since there is a differing of opinion we should throw all caution to the wind and just stop feeling responsible? It isn't logical at all. The only way to prove things to some folks is if they can experience outcomes to their fruition. We can't do that with climate change unless you can time travel into the future 100 years, pop back, and give us all another shot to try it a different way. Only then could it be to the level of proof some suggest we need to take more precautions. It isn't that black and white - all that we know is based on models that serve to predict where we are headed. It's also based on everyday observations any of us can do.

This warming is changing the patterns of weather significantly, and I don't need science to verify this as I've seen and felt it over the past couple of decades. Even if my own senses and awareness didn't tell me it is changing I would trust the majority of scientists on the matter. Yep - it's done this before but I'm not sure there was a big hole in the ozone layer during those periods. I'm not certain it was this fast. Why would I want to risk that this is normal? I have kids.

I don't agree with a tax, not even a little bit since I do not even get how that would help anything other than to not make anyone have to give up their greed. I see a lot of people influenced by a tax in their thinking on global warming. This is just as bad as trying to tax it away. We can change without a tax being involved.

Although it doesn't alter my own desire to play it safe and change some of my wasteful habits, I do wonder if you're right with it being too late. I think this is the case. It doesn't justify doing more of it, as if we should give up. Anything we do now may not benefit anything until 50 years down the road but the people of that time matter.

I believe (personally) that the word "changing" is probably used because too many people think if it is colder out it means global warming isn't happening. How it is phrased seems appropriate when so many within the population do not understand what global warming is.

a reply to: beezzer

It's not going to cost you anything, but it will cost your son and neither of us will likely ever have grandchildren.

My company already pays $10 grand a month for carbon tax. Can't wait to see what it's about to be.