anti global warming rhetoric and America's decline

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: superbanjo

I haven't seen anyone argue that the climate isn't changing. The climate is always changing, that's what it does.

You AGW types always try to latch on to that trope for some reason.

The argument is that humans are effecting the the climate to the degree that all the chicken littles are claiming. The argument is against the carbon credit scams trying to be pushed on the people.

It's also not helping when the fear mongering is proven to be wrong, i.e still arctic sea ice, ocean levels not up 20 ft., haven't been more hurricanes...

Consider a car was headed your direction and showed no signs of stopping. Would you just stand there and say "well it hasn't hit me yet, so I won't move?"

Also, if we are here to talk science let's use data not claims.

#1 Arctic sea ice is showing the lowest levels on record this year.
blogs.discovermagazine.com...

#2 Oceans levels are increasing.
www.ucsusa.org...

#3 There have been more hurricanes due to rising temperatures.
www.c2es.org...

More recently (2000-2013), the average is about 16 tropical storms per year, including about eight hurricanes. This increase in frequency is correlated with the rise in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures

originally posted by: superbanjo
Here is a good short video explaining 5 basic scientific principles behind the global warming theory, take the time and challenge yourself.

How can America lead in the economy of the future if we are so committed to the economic interests of the past?

I find it ironic that oil companies have spent billions to "debunk" climate change in interest of profits by calling it a conspiracy - and conspiracy theorists have actually bought their propaganda and don't even realize that they've flipped sides.

Fine, fine, forget the "debate" about GW..... let's just do something about fossil fuel pollution

The air in much of China is so bad the government has repeatedly declared "war" on it. The enemy are tiny particulates which spew forth from countless cars, coal-fired power stations and steel plants to create a dense, putty-coloured smog.
.....
"Beijing's extreme pollution and the 'red alert' are connected to China's addiction to coal burning, and it's very energy intensive way of industrial growth. Coal burning is the biggest single source of air pollution in China, and burning of coal, has for the first time in this century declined in 2014 compared to 2013.

"That's a very significant thing. As a result air quality in the major cities like Beijing and regions in the Yangtze River Delta has seen improvements.

"Greenpeace has been capturing the government-released hour-by-hour data of 190 cities, and only 15% of them have seen an increase of their readings, and all the rest of them are more or less improved.

"We're seeing renewable energy picking up and taking larger share of total power use in China, and then it's actually already eating up the market space of coal.
"New coal power plants are still being proposed and still being invested [in] by local government and state-owned enterprises as if it was still the good old days. However I doubt there will be enough demand to support them, and they will very likely become idle plants."

What is China doing to tackle its air pollution?

a reply to: superbanjo

It is my opinion that the real demise of America might come about from the infantile and dishonest nature of our political system and not the disappearance of manufacturing. If our country got serious and pioneered to development of new technologies the way we did for , railroads, automobiles, telecommunications, electrical transmission, computers and every single major technological advancement of the last 200 years, we might be able to dig ourselves out of this economic slump. But I think if we take the road of shunning undesirable science and continuously championing 100 year old technology we will eventually reach a point of no return and suffer a real economic decline that will be hard to reverse. Other countries will take our place, they will develop the technologies and the patents and we will be old news, stuck in the past arguing about the color of the sky hopefully...

Yep. Shortly after he moved into the white House in 1981, Ronald Reagan removed the White House solar panels, a signal that America would not participate in new energy technology but remain with fossil fuel as the energy source of choice. So, we are 35 years behind where we could have been, and other countries will surpass us.

We will do to ourselves what enemies of old have done to their foes.... destroy and pollute resources. As long as we chant, "We're #1", we will be oblivious as we ride off into a dim, small future. A far different future than we would have had, if we had not squandered golden opportunities.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: yuppa

Yet you are trying to tell me populartechnology.net is legit?

SkepticalScience links actual studies to their rebuttals. All you got is more B$.

I suppose if you do not like the message then you feel obligated to attack the messenger.

For the record populartechnology.net is devoted to climate science denial and even uses the renowned quack Anthony Watts in a rebuttal attempt.

You didnt look further down and see the evidence they posted of this guys at SS? the Man at SS copies and paste everything i bet.

Maybe we need to relgate man made climate change to Like saying heil hitler in germany will get you jail time.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: jrod

Can you control of the temperature of the sun?

No? Well what do you suggest we do about it then?

Every other planet in the solar system is warming up as well, I wonder if they have all that man made carbon too..

Maybe if the Environmentalists hadn't spent decades demonising nuclear power with the propaganda and lies from the fossil fuels industry we wouldn't have to worry about coal and other such nonsense.

every other planet in the solar system is warming?.....do you have precise measurements for Jupiter, Saturn, mars, Uranus, Neptune?...what a bunch of fake scientific crap is that?

a reply to: yuppa

It is clear that reading comprehension is not something you are good at, so here is a youtube video that helps explain the issue in this discussion:

a reply to: jrod

Consensus does not equal fact. They used to think earth was flat too remember?

a reply to: yuppa

Wow. You are really trying to embrace ignorance here.

Did you even watch the clip?

Consensus or not, the evidence, the data, the observations all tell us anthropogenic climate change is very real and happening.

There is no evidence, data, nor observations that suggests this is not happening. Only political/economical rhetoric and clever disinformation style arguments.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: yuppa

Wow. You are really trying to embrace ignorance here.

Did you even watch the clip?

Consensus or not, the evidence, the data, the observations all tell us anthropogenic climate change is very real and happening.

There is no evidence, data, nor observations that suggests this is not happening. Only political/economical rhetoric and clever disinformation style arguments.

thats Your manufactured evidence. The Models are wrong.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: yuppa

Wow. You are really trying to embrace ignorance here.

Did you even watch the clip?

Consensus or not, the evidence, the data, the observations all tell us anthropogenic climate change is very real and happening.

There is no evidence, data, nor observations that suggests this is not happening. Only political/economical rhetoric and clever disinformation style arguments.

thats Your manufactured evidence. The Models are wrong.

You cannot walk around ATS and call people wrong without explaining why. So tell us.

originally posted by: bananasam

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: superbanjo

Consider a car was headed your direction and showed no signs of stopping. Would you just stand there and say "well it hasn't hit me yet, so I won't move?"

That's a flawed analogy. Here you compare a car with the irreversible (and "catastrophic") climate change/global warming I suppose? In that case, you already assume that this climate change is irreversible, so the car is heading towards you and you have to make a choice. However, the question really is whether that car is there in the first place, and if so, is it exactly heading towards you and at what speed? I don't think it has been proven yet that the car is there, let alone that it's going to "crush" us in case we don't act immediately.

Also, if we are here to talk science let's use data not claims.

#1 Arctic sea ice is showing the lowest levels on record this year.
blogs.discovermagazine.com...

True, but the first satellite record only dates back from 1979, before that we don't really have accurate measurements. So we can't say with certainty that this is "abnormally" low, or that it is not part of a larger natural cycle. And as you can see, it's very close to being within the standard deviation range again. I also hope that you know that the melting of sea ice does NOT contribute to global sea level rise, it actually decreases it due to the difference in volume.

#2 Oceans levels are increasing.
www.ucsusa.org...

Yes they have, since the last ice age, but certainly not at an unprecedented rate. Also here it is important to note that it is really difficult to accurately measure global sea levels. There are so many different variables involved, including the rising and sinking of land.

#3 There have been more hurricanes due to rising temperatures.
www.c2es.org...

The link doesn't work..

More recently (2000-2013), the average is about 16 tropical storms per year, including about eight hurricanes. This increase in frequency is correlated with the rise in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures

It is not only about the frequency, but also about the overall intensity. What's worse: more smaller ones, or a few bigger ones? You decide. And if there's any trend at all, the "accumulated cyclone energy" sees a downward one.

This is what NOAA itself has to say about Hurricanes and Global Warming.

It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.

And this is what NASA has to say on Extreme Weather Events:

Bill Patzert, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, says the evidence that extreme weather events have been more frequent in recent years is definitely to the contrary...As far as hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, floods, and drought, the evidence is definitely not in.

Like so many topics, it seems to me that the pro-AGW folks are more concerned with being right than exploring and presenting options that everyone can get on board with.

Money wont solve anything, but the advances in technology that may stop, or lessen, our impact on the environment don't need to even come up in the same conversation as AGW.

So, why not talk about new types of generators and engines, revolutionary new approaches to housing and manufacturing, or innovative approaches to daily life that everyone can benefit from? Why waste time converting each and every individual to the "right" motivations before we actually embrace ever increasing efficiency into our technology?

Might find a hell of a lot more support selling cool new tech than selling what is perceived as a belief system.

a reply to: yuppa

www.populartechnology.net...
on John Cook:

It is very important for Mr. Cook to keep up this facade, as once people learn of his lack of credentials and scientifically worthless employment history they are unlikely to take his website seriously no matter how he desperately pads his resume. As opposed to the highly credentialed climate scientists his staff harassed and censored;

cartoonist and has a cricket blog, also pretends to be a Nazi...hmmm

a reply to: yuppa

The clip explicitly says, if we ignore the computer models the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is there.

You did not even watch it. It seems like you automatically dismiss evidence that does not pat your confirmation bias.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Nice ad hominem attack there.

Populartechnology is not a reputable source of information. It falls under the category of disinformation and fake news.

a reply to: jrod

Really, says who, you? So you're being our own personal Snopes/Facebook right now, helping us to decide on what's "fake" and what's not? Thank you, but I don't need a hand from you, I'm sure I can handle it myself.

It's about the INFORMATION that is provided here on Mr. Cook, not the source (PopTech) itself. He's not a scientist nor an expert by any means, but a "communicator". Someone who only likes to "cook" and push one particular narrative: the catastrophic AGW theory.

You can check all the links in the article yourself, and I hope you do. I would say that the information presented here is worrisome to say the very least, and seriously puts his credibility in jeopardy.

I understand your argument, however if anything about the analogy is flawed, it's that the subject is just you and not 7 billion people + life on earth.

1) To put it simply, it would be wrong to ignore something where you have a small chance of being right, and being wrong has huge consequences. The chance that climate change is natural variability has been rejected with over a 99% certainty.

theconversation.com...

2) The fight against climate change just so happens to also reduce the cost of energy, reduce air pollution, and allows citizens to gain energy independence without being on a grid. These are things everyone can utilize.


As for your other points, I think it's a fair point to still make the argument about storms. I do not disagree and am happy you cited NOAA.

Rising water on the other hand is already affecting people. Note that part of it is climate change and part of it is natural local variability - but we still should do something about it because we see the signs.
www.scientificamerican.com...

originally posted by: snchrnct
originally posted by: bananasam

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: superbanjo

Consider a car was headed your direction and showed no signs of stopping. Would you just stand there and say "well it hasn't hit me yet, so I won't move?"

That's a flawed analogy. Here you compare a car with the irreversible (and "catastrophic") climate change/global warming I suppose? In that case, you already assume that this climate change is irreversible, so the car is heading towards you and you have to make a choice. However, the question really is whether that car is there in the first place, and if so, is it exactly heading towards you and at what speed? I don't think it has been proven yet that the car is there, let alone that it's going to "crush" us in case we don't act immediately.

Also, if we are here to talk science let's use data not claims.

#1 Arctic sea ice is showing the lowest levels on record this year.
blogs.discovermagazine.com...

True, but the first satellite record only dates back from 1979, before that we don't really have accurate measurements. So we can't say with certainty that this is "abnormally" low, or that it is not part of a larger natural cycle. And as you can see, it's very close to being within the standard deviation range again. I also hope that you know that the melting of sea ice does NOT contribute to global sea level rise, it actually decreases it due to the difference in volume.

#2 Oceans levels are increasing.
www.ucsusa.org...

Yes they have, since the last ice age, but certainly not at an unprecedented rate. Also here it is important to note that it is really difficult to accurately measure global sea levels. There are so many different variables involved, including the rising and sinking of land.

#3 There have been more hurricanes due to rising temperatures.
www.c2es.org...

The link doesn't work..

More recently (2000-2013), the average is about 16 tropical storms per year, including about eight hurricanes. This increase in frequency is correlated with the rise in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures

It is not only about the frequency, but also about the overall intensity. What's worse: more smaller ones, or a few bigger ones? You decide. And if there's any trend at all, the "accumulated cyclone energy" sees a downward one.

This is what NOAA itself has to say about Hurricanes and Global Warming.

It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.

And this is what NASA has to say on Extreme Weather Events:

Bill Patzert, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, says the evidence that extreme weather events have been more frequent in recent years is definitely to the contrary...As far as hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, floods, and drought, the evidence is definitely not in.

originally posted by: snchrnct
a reply to: jrod

You mean that it has been "debunked" by the website "promoting" sceptical science? If I would have to name one source that is not in any way "sceptical" about the "official" story (like they claim to be), it's that website. You should really broaden your horizon in that respect and check out other sources as well. In the end, the truth, if there's one, will be somewhere in the middle.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I do believe the world is changing, but I'm bothered by a few things:

Most "man-made climate change prophets" and their proponents base their position on things they've been told. Things they've read. Basically they've seen YouTube videos or read books written by convincing Americans. They have no first-hand knowledge of anything. They assume all Polar bears are clinging to small ice floats and starve to death.

The Russians don't care - they shrug their shoulders, blame it on the sun and get on with their existence. I'm not even talking about the Vodka drinking homeless - I'm talking about the scientists. They don't drink the American Kool-Aid - Is that because they know something we don't - or just because they don't want to be told what to think by the West?

The percentage of scientists that support the man-made scenario keeps increasing - if it keeps up, it'll be "more than 100%" at some point. I think the numbers are inflated, and that the concept of "scientist" in this case is very broad. Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist and Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer. These two LOVE to get screen time, and are of course very convincing. If you want to get some funding, you can't do research that proves the prevailing man-made scenario wrong, now can you?

It has almost become illegal to not buy the official story of man-made climate change. That is a red flag in my book. It MAY be to try to overpower the influence by Big Oil - who of course want none of this solar panel, battery stuff - But every time you're not allowed to criticize something, it smells bad to me.

I don't really care what Leonardo DiCaprio feels about climate change - no more than I care about certain Hollywood stars' deep concern for Africa. Feels like they're putting on... an act.

It's US - the everyday people that are asked to sing Kumbaya and make a change - when it's big business, industry, shipping that pollute the most. Let the ones that use the most energy be the first to cut down.

We're scheduled for a new ice age at some point. Maybe we "need all the heat we can muster"?

Is the climate changing? Yes - it appears to, but it's hard to tell if it's changing as much, less so or more than claimed. Is it man made? Probably influenced by human activity.

Are we doomed? I don't think it will change much if e.g. 1-2 million people in Norway start paying $13 per gallon (we're already at HALF that level) or start using pogo sticks.

In the end - the EARTH will survive no matter what happens to us - at the end of the day, we're more or less like dandruff in the grand scheme of things.

a reply to: snchrnct

Regardless of Cooks credentials, he links credible studies to his arguments.

Because skepticalscience does not stroke your confirmation bias, you unleash ad hominem attacks on the site's creator while ignoring the plethorha of evidence that is present and cited on the site. This is a clear example of you being intellectually dishonest.