In Florida, officials ban term 'climate change'

This thread really has turned out to be a glorious example of how completely backwards climate deniers have this whole conspiracy.

It’s quite clear they don’t understand what the scientists (or even Al Gore for that matter) are actually saying, so they just sit here and have imaginary conversations with themselves about it.

What always gets me though is the militant denial. It’s perfectly fine to be skeptical and question things, but when those questions have logical answers, a critical thinking person would at least weigh that new information out thoughtfully and carefully against their previously held beliefs.

But deniers very obviously just scramble to reaffirm their dogmatic outlook in spite of that evidence any way they can – either by moving the goalposts and changing the subject, or grasping for more strawmen to fill the gaping holes the cognitive dissonance leaves behind.

I really just wish they could grasp for 5 seconds how desperate and delusional it makes them look to the rest of us who can see right through this pathetic charade. I honestly cringe reading some of the mental gymnastics they attempt to keep up all the time.

And yet they think because it gets under our skin to have to watch this psychological train wreck of theirs – it somehow means they’re actually just being clever and “winning” the debate here.

This is so absurd.

This is the most retarded thing I've heard all month. Almost as bad as Inhofe's Snowball.

Even if you are adamantly appossed to my view that man is causing a warming cycle, you still know that the climate changes for a multitude of reasons. How can you ban the phrase climate change with a straight face?

And back to reality and the snowball. Try living in Vegas. We've had the warmest winter I think since 1937 but personally, it was the warmest winter in my over 15 years of living here.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't need lessons on comprehension. And I'm not "pissed" about anything that Al Gore does,

No, it seems I was dead on.

No, see, this is a form of fear mongering and toying with people's emotions.

Looks like that scared you and you're pissed about it.

There is zero--ZERO--proof that what he is using as an example will happen...he's playing in hypotheticals and presenting them in a factual manner.

And there is the poor comprehension I was talking about.

He didn't say it was going to happen or when it would happen as you already admitted he said "if it happens".

There is good reason to give that hypothetical. It seems you are just not familiar with looking up such things.

Here I will help you.

greenland ice sheet collapse

THE cracks are beginning to show. Greenland's ice sheets slid into the sea 400,000 years ago, when Earth was only a little warmer than it is today. That could mean we are set for a repeat performance.

The finding, along with data from Antarctica, suggests both of Earth's big ice sheets may have already passed a crucial tipping point, condemning them to collapse – either melting, or sliding into the ocean. That will mean sea levels rising by as much as 13 metres, leading to massive coastal flooding. So how fast will the ice collapse, and can we stop it?

Ice sheets may have already passed point of no return

antarctic ice sheet collapse

They didn’t know it then, but Domack and his expedition colleagues would be some of the last people to see the ice sheet intact in person. By the time they got home to the U.S. about two months later, the ice shelf had nearly completely disintegrated. A plateau of ice measuring 1,250 square miles — an area bigger than Rhode Island — had just collapsed into pieces, shattering like the safety glass of a car’s windshield. Warming Air Was Trigger for Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse

By Tom Yulsman | December 5, 2014 2:30 pm

Earlier this year, new research offered strong evidence that melting of the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet has passed the point of no return. If true, this means it is now in irreversible retreat and will “collapse,” as scientists put it, over the course of 200 years, give or take.

As the ice tumbled into the sea and melted, such a scenario would eventually raise sea level by 16 feet. That’s enough to swamp coastal areas where many tens of millions of people live worldwide. Luckily, however, the time frame is long — if not from a geologic perspective, certainly from a societal one.

This week new research has suggested that the melt rate of glaciers in West Antarctica has tripled during the last decade. And another study attempts to show why: According to the research, over the past 40 years, a deep mass of water ringing Antarctica called the Circumpolar Deep Water appears to have warmed. The research also shows that warming CDW waters are intruding more and more to the undersides of glaciers that drain the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, causing them to melt from below, and speeding their passage toward the sea. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet Has Not Collapsed, But New Findings are Concerning. Do they Indicate a ‘Climate Crisis’?

Antarctica is gaining land ice and sea ice.

Incorrecto. Try again.

Science says: Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate, which has implications for sea level rise.

Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.Why is Antarctica gaining sea ice?

Is it sea ice or land ice when melted raises the sea level?

Northeastern Canada has been seeing dramatic increases in ice accumulation

Question...Does that ice last throughout the year?

Also

Are you aware of what net gain and net loss mean?

a reply to: AboveBoard

Almost of of Florida's beaches are re-nourished via a taxpayer funded dredge and pump deal the Florida government has going on with Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company. They have been doing this for decades now. Their website only has information on the Palm Beach project. Often they just simply pump sand from offshore is NOT part of dredging a harbor and inlet. Palm Beach Coastal Protection

It is strange that Florida's GOP controlled government still allows for "Coastal Protection" at the tax payer expense(those who live inland still pay for it too!), yet will silence any talk of climate change and the possible ramifications of the changing climate.

Note my question from a thread I made,already posted but asked the mods to delete..

What the hell is wrong with these Mfkrs, I mean there is a point when greed and stupidity take a back seat to the future survival of one's off-springs, really Scott?? ..you are so into big oil that even talking about the change in climate is offensive to you.
An appeal to those who are conservative but not batss!!!t insane , pls for the sake of your children and grandchildren, get rid of these people.
S&F Jrod.

a reply to: jrod

Almost all of Florida's beaches get re-nourished at the tax payer's expense....

I felt like I needed to fix that typo.

As I posted on the other thread, Rick Scott was booed off stage in almost all public appearances prior to his re-election. While it is obvious the voting population is ignorant, it truly makes me question the election process when someone who is so unpopular that he gets routinely gets booed off stage manages to get re-elected.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The rest of the world, everyone. Where people deny things are their own fault, and blame America for everything.

Why actually look into the facts of a story, when you can just post a huge picture and sensationalize a bunch of utter bull$h1t?

Nice work!

a reply to: jrod

Where in this story is there any proof that these words were banned? The sources come from a few people, one being an attorney. You know, the most trustworthy people around...

Where is the actual hard evidence that these words were banned?

These are the kinds of things that only draw to further divide us. Do you not see that?

Just like I originally asked you, what changes if the Florida government comes out tomorrow and says that global warming is 100% real? Are China and India then going to stop burning fossil fuels exponentially? Is the sun going to stop being a super hot ball of plasma? Is the average person going to change their habits? What would change?

Everyone admitting that global warming is 100% man's fault doesn't change the reality of the world.

With or without global warming, we need to change our habits anyways...we need to recycle more and pollute less regardless of whether or not CO2 is the main cause of climate change.

My belief in global warming has no bearing on why I recycle, and fight against pollution. I do it because it is the right thing to do for the future of our planet, and all the living things on Earth.

Lastly, what do you feel is the agenda of these deniers? Looking at the current market, oil isn't the money maker it used to be. Oil companies are and have been investing in green energy for years.

a reply to: jrod

If people keep talking about climate change, they might stop buying million dollar ocean front homes & tourism would drop.

Corporatocracy: 1
Science: 0

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Did you read the article?

This question has already been addressed in this thread. There are many people within Florida Department of Environmental Protection(DEP) who have verified this is the policy currently in Florida, however officially Rick Scott and his PR staff deny this, despite what has been brought to light.

This is a conspiracy. Not much different than Rick Scott claiming he did not know the company he was CEO of was scamming medicare for billions.

Who are you going to believe? A growing number of scientists and others who have worked for the DEP, or Rick Scott and his staffers who have built their platform on lies and deception?

You know all this was pre-figured in Superman's home planet Krypton, when the lead scientist warned politicians that their core was about to go boom,and they poo pooed him to death..literally, for their planet's core did went boom, here we are being warned by 11.000 scientist with about 3 scientist getting paid by big oil that said differently..but what do our politicians do?? wring their hands when ask to put legislation in place to temper the effects or fight climate change say stuff in much the same manner of Dr Mc Coy ..dammit Jim I am a politician not a scientist !

a reply to: Grimpachi

Your snarkiness would be comical if it wasn't so misplaced and ignorant.

You have completely misinterpreted my comments on Mr. Gore, so I'll just leave that one alone and assume that you just aren't going to get it after already stating things a couple of times. It's not a point worth beating, and your ability to comprehend it is not my concern nor is it a worthwhile endeavor in the grand scheme of things.

And your assertion that Antarctica is losing ice overall is part of that ignorant snarkiness to which I already alluded (even if it is 'accepted' and regurgitated over and over). There is plenty of satelite evidence that shows that ice mass (on land, and in the sea) has been increasing overall for quite a while, and that there's a very natural pattern of increase and loss of ice (per the ice core samples) over the last 800 years--which, even though that proves that gain and loss is part of a natural cycle, it also shows that the AGW claims that our CO2 production since the industrial revolution has minimal, if even any, proven effect on world-wide land ice.

Increased Ice Loading In The Antarctic Peninsula Since The 1850s And Its Effect On Glacial Isostatic Adjustment

[1] Antarctic Peninsula (AP) ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855, and any resultant ice mass increase has the potential to contribute substantially to present-day glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). We derive empirical orthogonal functions from climate model output to infer typical spatial patterns of accumulation over the AP and, by combining with ice core records, estimate annual accumulation for the period 1855–2010. In response to this accumulation history, high resolution ice-sheet modeling predicts ice thickness increases of up to 45 m, with the greatest thickening in the northern and western AP. ...
...
[3] In the AP, ice core records suggest an increase in annual accumulation since the 1850s, e.g. the Gomez ice core in Palmer Land (see Figure 1a) indicates a doubling of accumulation during this period [Thomas et al., 2008]. Other ice cores [e.g., Peel, 1992] indicate that increases also occur elsewhere but the rate and magnitude is not uniform across the AP, with more increase seen in the west and north than in the east. ...

[4] We hypothesize that recent accumulation along the AP causes a viscoelastic response of sufficient magnitude that the resulting subsidence could be observed at the surface. This would counteract the predicted uplift due to deglaciation since the LGM, potentially explaining the low rates of present-day uplift observed by GPS [Bevis et al., 2009; Thomas et al., 2011]. This accumulation-related mass increase has not been included in recently reconstructed AP loading histories [e.g., Ivins et al., 2011].

So, basically since the 1850s (a decade oft-cited by AGW proponents as a good measurement baseline), the land ice on Antarctica has increased--enough so that observed and measured land uplift has been well below predictions (based on faulty climate-change models, I assume).

Furthermore:

Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gtlyr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gtlyr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (W A and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry. Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gtlyr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gtlyr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gtlyr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS ofWA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.

Also, contrary to your ignorant assumption of me, I know that land ice is what creates a rise in sea level--sea ice is already in the water, and its displacement (for the most part) will equal out with the amount of water added if it melts. But that's not the issue that I ever discussed, but instead a bundle of crap that you threw out there in order to make yourself appear smart and me appear ignorant. That tactic doesn't work, and generally has the opposite effect, as it does here.

Also, you might want to do a little research into the data that shows there is a reciprocal relationship between arctic and antarctic ice--generally, when one increases, the other decreases, and vice versa. Since it appears that arctic ice (which is only sea ice--I figured I need to make that known so that you don't make another ignorant assumption about me) is on a measurable decrease in recent years, it would only make sense that Antarctic ice is on the rise, as the provided evidence suggests and shows.

As for your other unnecessary implied judgment of me:

Also

Are you aware of what net gain and net loss mean?

Please see this entire post by me for that question. Hopefully you can infer the answer for yourself, but suffice it to say that reading what you post is giving viewers of this thread a net loss of intelligence on this matter.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SlapMonkey
There's no proof the ice caps are melting? No proof that sea levels are rising and none that if land ice melts into the oceans that it won't raise sea levels?

Seriously?

Read my comment one more time (or twice, if necessary)--what you're implying I said is not what I said at all.

Seriously.

No, see, this is a form of fear mongering and toying with people's emotions. There is zero--ZERO--proof that what he is using as an example will happen...he's playing in hypotheticals and presenting them in a factual manner. Actually, Antarctica is gaining land ice and sea ice. And while Greenland is losing ice, Northeastern Canada has been seeing dramatic increases in ice accumulation, offsetting the loss of Greenland.

But to be completely honest, we're still apparently on the rebound from the Little Ice Age, so maybe those who built their resorts and homes and businesses next to the ocean (and still continue to do so) should have researched a little better about sea-level fluctuations and natural warming/cooling cycles of the globe.

I was calling out Gore's presentation of a hypothetical as an implied fact, then I re-enforced the fact that ice should be melting and seal levels rising because we are on a rebound from the "Little Ice Age."

Where at all did I say that sea levels aren't rising or that ice caps aren't melting?

Seriously...where?

Seriously.

a reply to: mc_squared

See my post here

Your claim that those of us skeptical of the "consensus'" (a long-proven falsity of a cliche) data as having a backward view just shows you hard-lined stance as well. You claim that we are the ones in "militant denial," but when there truly is scientific data and peer-reviewed papers to support our stance--or even just to lend credence to the positive position of remaining skeptical--folks like you turn your nose at it and ramble on about how we are "very obviously just scrambl[ing] to reaffirm [our] dogmatic outlook in spite of that evidence any way [we] can."

This is utter horse manure, and if you don't recognise it as such, your contributions to this thread and this discussion are tantamount to meaningless dribble, because you are behaving in exactly the same way as your accusations claim we skeptics are. But, as with any polarizing scientific issue, the claim of "I'm right and you're wrong" is prevalent on both sides, and there is evidence to support both claims. The problem lies in going in to deeper layers of research and investigating data collection, manipulation, funding, etc. and determining which, in the end, has the most unmolested truth behind it.

I started doing that over a decade ago, and that's why I'm not longer an AGW proponent and remain skeptical of all sides, instead using my critical thinking and research skills to come to my own conclusion. Whether you agree with my conclusions matters not, and you're not going to post any charts or links or graphs that I most likely have not already seen doing my own research--but something tells me I could post many refutations to your links that are scientifically sound, yet you would outright dismiss.

originally posted by: mc_squared
You need to get the story straight. Maybe then you'll come to understand what's really going on here.

I'll get right on that, because your claim about scientists being bought out goes both ways, and your ideologically driven online bully language really makes me want to listen to your supposed rational and logical viewpoint.

Like I've said in other posts, I'm more than a decade deep in researching all sides of climate-change research, and I know enough from all of that to say this: Not one single climate (or other) scientist knows the cause-effect relationship of climate. They don't have enough data, nor enough accurate data, to make long-term predictions nor long-term historical charts that represent the whole of the globe (only localized regions).

You can ramble on all you want about 'understanding what's really going on here,' but the truth that you're obviously either too narcisitic or willfully ignorant to admit is that no one has an understand as to what's really going on here, and it'd be best for everyone if you don't play make-believe as if you do.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

You can ramble on all you want about 'understanding what's really going on here,' but the truth that you're obviously either too narcisitic or willfully ignorant to admit is that no one has an understand as to what's really going on here, and it'd be best for everyone if you don't play make-believe as if you do.

Amazing how you guys always accuse the 'otherside' of the exact thing you are guilty of. You are also causing topic dillution and thread drift with your rants. There are a plethora of threads in the Fragile Earth forum that address the issues you just ranted about, but you know that.

This is the US Political Madness forum, the discussion should be based on the politics of this stunt that Florida's governor is pulling, not the same old tired claim that the 'science is not there'. That is a load of BS and has been done over and over again on ATS. We do NOT need the same old ignorant claims that are NOT backed by science in this thread too.

The science is overwhelming. Visit South Florida in September/October during a New Moon and spring tides, maybe that will change your mind.

Also you claim that you research this stuff, can you show us all a resident time calculation for CO2 in the atmosphere. It should be an easy exercise for someone who has studied this for a decade!

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Keep ignoring the observations!

Show me a resident time calculation for CO2, if you can not in a timely manner it is proof you are no expert and the research you have done means nothing. Resident times are vital to understanding how the atmosphere works and reacts.

a reply to: jrod

Keep up with your logical fallacies, sir. I keep forgetting--if someone isn't a certified climate scientist, then they must be an idiot.

Why didn't I realize that before...it would have saved me so much time? Of course, I could say I am a climate scientist, but you wouldn't believe me if I were (nor would I believe you that you are one).

BTW, who made you the judge/jury/executioner on what is and is not acceptable science (especially when what I discuss and post is from peer-reviewed scientific journals or come with readily available observational data, not based on computer models)? You have taken a stance on the information that you choose to believe, and contrary to what you may believe, my opinion has been evolving as better data and a broader picture about climate history emerges--and we're still very long way from fully understanding it.

Your little tantrum test about resident time calculations for CO2 is meaningless. Don't tell me that " if (I) can not [show you a resident time calculation for CO2] in a timely manner it is proof (I am) no expert and the research (I) have done means nothing." In doing so, you come across both as narcissistic and ignorant. The entire internet could give me that information in a split second (and has, many times in the past), so that proves nothing about what I am and am not an expert in.

This discussion with you is about as fruitful as a petrified fig tree. Best regards, but I'm done spending my time on this thread, which just simply regurgitates the same talking points from 1998, over and over again, and where the commenters use language like they're first-year college kids.

a reply to: johnwick

Who's making those predictions scientists or politicians? Once you answer that question you will understand when those predictions were wrong. Scientists just report the data and trends. Politicians are the ones that take that information, sprinkle a bit of hyperbole in there and transform it into doomporn. That doesn't make the thing the scientists are studying not a real thing though.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
....
Your little tantrum test about resident time calculations for CO2 is meaningless. Don't tell me that " if (I) can not [show you a resident time calculation for CO2] in a timely manner it is proof (I am) no expert and the research (I) have done means nothing." In doing so, you come across both as narcissistic and ignorant. The entire internet could give me that information in a split second (and has, many times in the past), so that proves nothing about what I am and am not an expert in.

This discussion with you is about as fruitful as a petrified fig tree. Best regards, but I'm done spending my time on this thread, which just simply regurgitates the same talking points from 1998, over and over again, and where the commentators use language like they're first-year college kids.

It was you who claimed to have done the research on the subject at hand(human induced climate change) for 'over a decade', someone who has done decades of research on this subject would be well practiced in resident time calculations, for the air and waterways.

Again you accuse me of exactly what you are guilty up. It does get a little old. The internet is not a good source of information. Google searches now are highly manipulated and targeted, furthermore the internet is full of bad and deceitful information that claims to be 'true'.

So at least you are giving me credit for high school+ level writing. That is far higher than the articles Fox News provides for it's faithful.