Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Yonivore]

Not really a working definition of "significant scientific disagreement".

She doesn't really disagree that humans are driving warming. You do understand that right?
I think her views are reasonable and consistent with what I've been trying to express here.

From an NPR Article (https://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/213894792/uncertain-science-judith-currys-take-on-climate-change):


"...she doesn't deny the basic principles of climate change.

"'If all other things remain equal, it's clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet,' she told the committee.

"But, she went on, not all things are equal. She says there's so much uncertainty about the role of natural variation in the climate that she doesn't know what's going to happen. She says a catastrophe is possible, but warming could also turn out to be not such a big deal.

"And she focuses on uncertainties and unknown unknowns far more than on the consensus of climate scientists, who say we know enough to be deeply worried.

"'I've been trying to understand how there can be such a strong consensus, given these uncertainties,' she told the committee."
Seems reasonable.


"Curry's dissent from this position is as much about the economics as about the science.

"'I have six nieces and nephews who have recently graduated from college,' she says. 'Not easy finding jobs in this economy. Are we going to jeopardize their economic future, and we don't know if they're going to care and if this is going to matter?'

"Of course doing nothing to address climate change is actually doing a lot. Carbon dioxide levels are growing fast in the atmosphere and are destined to double or triple over pre-industrial levels. Curry acknowledges that.

"'I don't know how concerned I should be about it — on what time scale that might happen, whether that's 100 or 200 years, what societies will be like, what other things are going on with the natural climate,' Curry says. 'I just don't know what the next hundred or 200 years will hold, and whether this will be regarded as an important issue. I just don't know.'

"Advocates for action say we shouldn't run that experiment on our planet. Curry's response?

"'Well, I think the experiment is going to happen whether people say we should run it or not. We're not going to convince China and India and other developing countries not to burn fossil fuels.'"
I commend the entire article to you; there's something there for both of us to ponder.

[Pavlov]

'I have six nieces and nephews who have recently graduated from college,' she says. 'Not easy finding jobs in this economy. Are we going to jeopardize their economic future, and we don't know if they're going to care and if this is going to matter?'Did they go to college to become coal miners or something?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol in a field of thousands of scientists, yoni think finding a skeptic makes it so that there is a disagreement in the science. Typical.

[DarrinS]

:lol in a field of thousands of scientists, yoni think finding a skeptic makes it so that there is a disagreement in the science. Typical.

Non-alarmist = skeptic

Thanks for confirming

[RandomGuy]

There, fixed.

So, about this "vast majority of experts in the field," and the so-call "consensus" on global climate science.

A Reply to Cook and Oreskes on Climate Science Consensus Messaging (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2017.1392109?journalCode=renc20&)



You've fallen just short of calling me a denier (and, frankly, I'm surprised you haven't) when all I've asserted is skepticism is reasonable.

Fer fucks sake.

Is cherry picking data, by definition, an honest way to present data?
Yes or no.

If it helps:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry-Picking

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Non-alarmist = skeptic

Thanks for confirming


I don't know how concerned I should be about it — on what time scale that might happen, whether that's 100 or 200 years, what societies will be like, what other things are going on with the natural climate,' Curry says. 'I just don't know what the next hundred or 200 years will hold, and whether this will be regarded as an important issue. I just don't know.

Do I need to explain more to you?

Plus she apparently likes using ENSO peaks as starting points on her graphs like you do too. 1998! WOOHOO!

[Yonivore]

Fer fucks sake.

Is cherry picking data, by definition, an honest way to present data?
Yes or no.
Is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable or not?
Yes or no.


If it helps:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry-Picking
It doesn't. I know what cherry-picking is. But, why do you want to move the argument back to another topic?

It could be cherry-picking or, as I suspect, it is an honest attempt at demonstrating the how convoluted the AGCC proponent crowd has gotten with their never-ending data sets and explanations of why their models continue to fail to meet expectation. My use of the original information is still informed by my understanding of the issue from people such as Ms. Curry and others who continue to express legitimate skepticism over the current, prevailing climate orthodoxy.

[spurraider21]

Non-alarmist = skeptic

Thanks for confirming
So is every climate scientist who is not a skeptic or ":lol luke warmer" an alarmist?

[RandomGuy]

Is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable or not?
Yes or no.


It doesn't. I know what cherry-picking is. But, why do you want to move the argument back to another topic?

It could be cherry-picking or, as I suspect, it is an honest attempt at demonstrating the how convoluted the AGCC proponent crowd has gotten with their never-ending data sets and explanations of why their models continue to fail to meet expectation. My use of the original information is still informed by my understanding of the issue from people such as Ms. Curry and others who continue to express legitimate skepticism over the current, prevailing climate orthodoxy.

Seriously?

You can't even agree that cherry-picking logically flawed and inherently dishonest? A simple yes or no is too much. Wow.

You know why you can't or won't? Because you fucking know the stupid shitty article you posted did exactly that. You can't admit that there is even one stupid shit denier out there muddying up the water.

What I want, is to have a basis to evaluate evidence and arguments. You say you have an article with "a good point", and then it turns out to be a shitty article, just like so much "skeptical" argument turns out to be when you dig into the details.

If you can't even admit cherry picking is shitty way to construct arguments, I give up. You win. You are more dishonest than me, and if you are willing to do that and buy arguments based on that, then you can fuck right off, and quit wasting my time.

[Yonivore]

Seriously?

You can't even agree that cherry-picking logically flawed and inherently dishonest? A simple yes or no is too much. Wow.
Sure. Intentional cherry-picking is dishonest.


You know why you can't or won't? Because you fucking know the stupid shitty article you posted did exactly that. You can't admit that there is even one stupid shit denier out there muddying up the water.

What I want, is to have a basis to evaluate evidence and arguments. You say you have an article with "a good point", and then it turns out to be a shitty article, just like so much "skeptical" argument turns out to be when you dig into the details.

If you can't even admit cherry picking is shitty way to construct arguments, I give up. You win. You are more dishonest than me, and if you are willing to do that and buy arguments based on that, then you can fuck right off, and quit wasting my time.
I just did.

Now, is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable?

[Yonivore]

Seriously?

You can't even agree that cherry-picking logically flawed and inherently dishonest? A simple yes or no is too much. Wow.
By the way, do you believe Michael Mann "cherry-picked" his data to arrive at the famous hockey stick graph? Would that be logically flawed and dishonest?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure. Intentional cherry-picking is dishonest.


I just did.

Now, is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable?

Well her using 1998 ENSO peaks as a justification for claiming the climate has paused in unreasonable. From a dimwit like Darrin it is one thing. From a climatologist it's inexcusable. They should know better and it speaks to a implicit bias. She also does forecasting for oilcos of course.

[Yonivore]

Seriously?

You can't even agree that cherry-picking logically flawed and inherently dishonest? A simple yes or no is too much. Wow.
And, do you think Nobel Prize winning climate Oracle, Al Gore, cherry-picked any data to arrive at the cataclysmic predictions in his Inconvenient Truth movie?

[Yonivore]

Seriously?

You can't even agree that cherry-picking logically flawed and inherently dishonest? A simple yes or no is too much. Wow.
Do you believe the "Hide the Decline" emails, hacked from the University of East Anglia, demonstrate any dishonesty on the part of AGCC scientists?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you believe the "Hide the Decline" emails, hacked from the University of East Anglia, demonstrate any dishonesty on the part of AGCC scientists?

That was settled almost 6 years ago. You are clearly grasping for straws now.

But hey what specifically do you take issue with the emails? I await you quoting the telegraph article.

[spurraider21]

And, do you think Nobel Prize winning climate Oracle, Al Gore, cherry-picked any data to arrive at the cataclysmic predictions in his Inconvenient Truth movie?
Al Gore isn't a scientist. Many scientists you would call alarmist criticized his film.

[Yonivore]

Al Gore isn't a scientist. Many scientists you would call alarmist criticized his film.
Many didn't and he's a hero of the AGCC Alarmist crowd. Maybe they should denounce him as vociferously as they do skeptics.

[Pavlov]

I don't get the logic that since some heroes disagree, no one should even try to do anything about climate change ever.

[spurraider21]

I don't get the logic that since some heroes disagree, no one should even try to do anything about climate change ever.


Because liberals are on the other side

[Yonivore]

Because liberals are on the other side
Or, it's because the economic consequences of the actions being suggested could be more damaging than any climate change that might or might not occur.

[Pavlov]

Or, it's because the economic consequences of the actions being suggested could be more damaging than any climate change that might or might not occur.What economic damage?

I'd like to see that quantified.

[spurraider21]

Or, it's because the economic consequences of the actions being suggested could be more damaging than any climate change that might or might not occur.
And instead of comparing the economic ramifications (political discussions) you choose to muddy the waters on the research (scientific discussion). The inability to separate the two, as i said, is the most concerning part of all this.

Ergo, my desire to avoid economically harmful policies demands that i also believe the underlying science must be false and the result of a global conspiracy

[boutons_deux]

"might or might not occur."

huge human and economic damage is going to occur, the 150-year long-trend trend is steady and worsening, not subject to reversal or even stabilizing.

BigCorp knows, the US military knows it, they are preparing for the disaster, the instability as Bs of people are faced with food, water shortages and the conflicts, war engendered.

[Yonivore]

And instead of comparing the economic ramifications (political discussions) you choose to muddy the waters on the research (scientific discussion). The inability to separate the two, as i said, is the most concerning part of all this.

Ergo, my desire to avoid economically harmful policies demands that i also believe the underlying science must be false and the result of a global conspiracy
Except we keep hearing the science is settled and that skeptics are deniers when, in fact, it's not and there is reasonable disagreement on what the state of our climate actually is. AGCC proponents don't want a reasonable debate on the science. They keep shouting down the opposition, threatening them, trying to criminalize dissent, etc...

AGCC Proponents have made the discussion political.

Here's the issue; AGCC proponents argue their conclusions on the state of our climate warrant the draconian economic retardation of the the Kyoto and Paris accords and that anyone who disagrees are heretic deniers. Skeptics simply argue there is not enough known about the climate, or of our contribution to it, or of future driving factors to warrant the kind of economic hardships pursuing an admittedly negligible benefit would cost.

[Pavlov]

Except we keep hearing the science is settled and that skeptics are deniers when, in fact, it's not and there is reasonable disagreement on what the state of our climate actually is. AGCC proponents don't want a reasonable debate on the science. They keep shouting down the opposition, threatening them, trying to criminalize dissent, etc...

AGCC Proponents have made the discussion political.

Here's the issue; AGCC proponents argue their conclusions on the state of our climate warrant the draconian economic retardation of the the Kyoto and Paris accords and that anyone who disagrees are heretic deniers. Skeptics simply argue there is not enough known about the climate, or of our contribution to it, or of future driving factors to warrant the kind of economic hardships pursuing an admittedly negligible benefit would cost.What is the "economic retardation of the the Kyoto and Paris accords" projected to be if the US its end of the deal?

Give us some numbers since it's scary.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What economic damage?

I'd like to see that quantified.

Here is the risk of nonaction quantified:

Because of climate change, “insurers are facing higher property and casualty insurance losses, which ultimately leads to higher costs to consumers and businesses,” the report notes. “Climate change and a rise in extreme weather-related events could increase losses in the future.”

Global mean surface temperatures have gone up by 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1951. The American Academy of Actuaries report put the total number of global natural loss events in 2014 at 980 with overall losses estimated at $110 billion. They claimed 7,700 lives. In 2014, from May 18-23, severe storms did $2.9 billion damage; severe winter damage, $1.7 billion from Jan. 5-8; and severe warmer weather damage from June 3-5, $1.3 billion.

Seven of the 10 warmest years on record in the contiguous 48 states have occurred since 1990, and the fraction of global land experiencing blistering summer temperatures has risen 10-fold in the last 50 years.

North America is particularly threatened by climate change: “Over the past three decades, the number of weather-related loss events in North America grew by a factor of five, according to a 2012 report by Munich Re. This compares with a four-fold increase in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, two in Europe, and 1.5 in South America. North America faces every type of hazardous weather risk — hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, flood, wildfire and storms, according to the report. One

reason is that no east-west mountain range exists in North America to prevent southern warm air from colliding with cold Canadian weather fronts.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that number of weather-related events with losses exceeding $1 billion nearly doubled, rising from 80 between 2004 and 2013 compared with only 46 events in the previous decade.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/lewis-diuguid/article18690846.html

[RandomGuy]

Sure. Intentional cherry-picking is dishonest.

I just did.

Now, is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable?

So we can now establish that intentional cherry-picking is dishonest.

Imagine, my surprise, when out of the thousands of climate scientists, you picked one as more credible than all the others. "skeptics are more credible than alarmists".

I have gone through through all sorts of "skeptical" websites over the years, and they have, very consistently and obviously deliberately cherry picked.

If people who call themselves "skeptics" consistently present data in an obviously dishonest way, I am going to be deeply skeptical of their claims and assertions.

So, we have, on one side, a large group of scientists who have a fairly consistent message about their field, and on the other, a group who lie through their teeth on a consistent basis, and need fucking moronic partisan pedo-defending hacks, like YOU to make their case with some weak sauce arguments.

Honestly, I think I am done responding to you here. You disgust me, deeply. Please fuck off. I am tired of being lied to.

[DarrinS]

Damn, RG triggered

[RandomGuy]

Here is the risk of nonaction quantified:

Because of climate change, “insurers are facing higher property and casualty insurance losses, which ultimately leads to higher costs to consumers and businesses,” the report notes. “Climate change and a rise in extreme weather-related events could increase losses in the future.”

Global mean surface temperatures have gone up by 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1951. The American Academy of Actuaries report put the total number of global natural loss events in 2014 at 980 with overall losses estimated at $110 billion. They claimed 7,700 lives. In 2014, from May 18-23, severe storms did $2.9 billion damage; severe winter damage, $1.7 billion from Jan. 5-8; and severe warmer weather damage from June 3-5, $1.3 billion.

Seven of the 10 warmest years on record in the contiguous 48 states have occurred since 1990, and the fraction of global land experiencing blistering summer temperatures has risen 10-fold in the last 50 years.

North America is particularly threatened by climate change: “Over the past three decades, the number of weather-related loss events in North America grew by a factor of five, according to a 2012 report by Munich Re. This compares with a four-fold increase in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, two in Europe, and 1.5 in South America. North America faces every type of hazardous weather risk — hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, flood, wildfire and storms, according to the report. One

reason is that no east-west mountain range exists in North America to prevent southern warm air from colliding with cold Canadian weather fronts.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that number of weather-related events with losses exceeding $1 billion nearly doubled, rising from 80 between 2004 and 2013 compared with only 46 events in the previous decade.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/lewis-diuguid/article18690846.html

The cost of these disasters is borne out by reinsurers. (who take the catastrophic parts of risks on property and casualty policies)

It is their business. They have hundreds of billions of dollars, and their existence at stake.

Fucking moronic partisan pedo-defending hacks love to point out increased development as the driver of increased losses, while down playing climate change.

Munich Re doesn't give a shit about their feelings. They have too much money at stake for dishonest arguments.

They say:
Yeah, we're driving climate change.
It's getting worse.
The trend line indicates it will continue to get worse.

What scares me the most is potential feedback loops that this warming my trigger, such as thawing permafrost releasing more greenhouse gases, or crystalline methane on sea floors.

The analogy I have read best is a light switch, you can gently increase the pressure on the switch without flipping it, but at some point, it flips and turns on whatever process it controls.

The conservative approach to risk dictates you don't go around pushing buttons on a complex machine you don't understand. That is a recipe for disaster.

What I find funny is people who would call themselves "conservative" are so liberal with risk.

Especially when there is a lot of economic benefit to limiting CO2 emissions. If someone says "it costs too much" but never tells you any information about the benefits, that is a time to be skeptical.

[RandomGuy]

Damn, RG triggered

Sure. Someone placing party and defending a child predator will piss me off. Sue me.

Do you think your political party should defend child-predators in their ranks?

[boutons_deux]

NASA develops tool that shows how much sea level rise coastal cities can expect based on location and degree of ice melt

https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2017/5a0eed67997db.jpg


https://phys.org/news/2017-11-nasa-tool-sea-coastal-cities.html

"Shit" like this is exactly why the Repugs are gutting NASA's budget.

[DarrinS]

Blasphemers

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies

[RandomGuy]

Blasphemers

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies

Do you think your political party should defend child-predators in their ranks? Just curious.

[DarrinS]

Do you think your political party should defend child-predators in their ranks? Just curious.

No one should defend sexual predators -- or marry them (ahem). :lol

[RandomGuy]

No one should defend sexual predators -- or marry them (ahem). :lol

So what do you think it say about a political party when many in that party do just that? "pedophile over [other party candidate]"

[Yonivore]

So we can now establish that intentional cherry-picking is dishonest.

Imagine, my surprise, when out of the thousands of climate scientists, you picked one as more credible than all the others. "skeptics are more credible than alarmists".

I have gone through through all sorts of "skeptical" websites over the years, and they have, very consistently and obviously deliberately cherry picked.

If people who call themselves "skeptics" consistently present data in an obviously dishonest way, I am going to be deeply skeptical of their claims and assertions.

So, we have, on one side, a large group of scientists who have a fairly consistent message about their field, and on the other, a group who lie through their teeth on a consistent basis, and need fucking moronic partisan pedo-defending hacks, like YOU to make their case with some weak sauce arguments.

Honestly, I think I am done responding to you here. You disgust me, deeply. Please fuck off. I am tired of being lied to.
Before you go, could you do me the courtesy of answering my question?

Is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable?

[RandomGuy]

Before you go, could you do me the courtesy of answering my question?

Is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable?

Her critiques are more technical that I have the expertise, time, or interest to really evaluate as reasonable or not.

But to keep it simple:
Yes.

I have to weigh them against the bulk of the evidence and consensus. I think it is far from the reasonable definition of "significant" that you are so desperate to muddy the subject with.

It's almost as if you selected, or PICKED, one expert out of an entire field to attempt to play up the controversy. A tactic similar to that of creationists who want to "teach the controversy".

Dishonest to the last. smh

[Yonivore]

Her critiques are more technical that I have the expertise, time, or interest to really evaluate as reasonable or not.

But to keep it simple:
Yes.
Okay. But, your suggestion that you lack the expertise to adequately evaluate her position is telling and speaks to my criticism that, in fact, climate science is a difficult and complex issue over which there is much disagreement. The science isn't settled.


I have to weigh them against the bulk of the evidence and consensus. I think it is far from the reasonable definition of "significant" that you are so desperate to muddy the subject with.
Given her credentials and previous position in the climate community, I disagree. Besides, she was just an example. There are others, with similar backgrounds, that hold varying versions of her skeptical position.


It's almost as if you selected, or PICKED, one expert out of an entire field to attempt to play up the controversy. A tactic similar to that of creationists who want to "teach the controversy".

Dishonest to the last. smh
I picked her BECAUSE of her background in climate science as an example of someone with heft that has an position that is different than the one to which you ascribe.

[RandomGuy]

Okay. But, your suggestion that you lack the expertise to adequately evaluate her position is telling and speaks to my criticism that, in fact, climate science is a difficult and complex issue over which there is much disagreement. The science isn't settled.

Given her credentials and previous position in the climate community, I disagree. Besides, she was just an example. There are others, with similar backgrounds, that hold varying versions of her skeptical position.

I picked her BECAUSE of her background in climate science as an example of someone with heft that has an position that is different than the one to which you ascribe.

If you have a scientist who makes the case, you should show some peer-reviewed research on the subject. Just a suggestion. That is how science works.
.

[RandomGuy]

As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction. Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate


Judith Curry has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[17] Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review

It doesn't take much to moderate, or even reduce Co2 emissions. The economic alarmists who claim vast economic damage from reductions in CO2 emissions have never made their case.

[RandomGuy]

The conservative approach to risk dictates you don't go around pushing buttons on a complex machine you don't understand. That is a recipe for disaster.

[Yonivore]

If you have a scientist who makes the case, you should show some peer-reviewed research on the subject. Just a suggestion. That is how science works.
.
Judith Curry makes the case for being skeptical. To paraphrase you, I have neither the expertise nor time to do what you suggest. Therefore, I give you Judith Curry to make my argument for me. Argue with her.

By the way, if you think what's done in this forum is scientific discovery, i feel bad for you. This forum lives up to its name, its all political, all the time.

[Yonivore]

It doesn't take much to moderate, or even reduce Co2 emissions. The economic alarmists who claim vast economic damage from reductions in CO2 emissions have never made their case.

I would suggest if it wasn't economically onerous, there wouldn't be so much opposition. And those arguing something needs to be done haven't made their case, either.

[RandomGuy]

I would suggest if it wasn't economically onerous, there wouldn't be so much opposition. And those arguing something needs to be done haven't made their case, either.

People used to be scared of black cats, think demons would enter your mouth while you yawned, and had much opposition to women who were thought to be witches. I would suggest you are assuming "so much opposition" is rational, without evidence.

I would also suggest you read up on economic self-interest to understand why that is. People with diffuse interests in it, that would benefit overall, i.e. 300,000,000 people in the country will never complain more than the people who would lose out most intensely, even when the overall economy has a net gain. In this case, multi-trillion dollar industry with money to burn making useful idiots think there is way more controversy than there actually is.

Those arguing that we take a liberal approach to risk haven't made their case, either. I am very conservative when it comes to accepting risk with catastrophic potential consequences.

You can make the same argument for protectionist trade policies. If free trade weren't so economically onerous, there wouldn't be so much opposition.

Fuck. I did it again. I took your dishonest arguments at face value.

You don't care about the truth, only telling just enough of it, to make your viewpoint seem reasonable. You really do disgust me. Ick.

[RandomGuy]

By the way, if you think what's done in this forum is scientific discovery,

I don't. Just to be clear.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

People used to be scared of black cats, think demons would enter your mouth while you yawned, and had much opposition to women who were thought to be witches. I would suggest you are assuming "so much opposition" is rational, without evidence.

I would also suggest you read up on economic self-interest to understand why that is. People with diffuse interests in it, that would benefit overall, i.e. 300,000,000 people in the country will never complain more than the people who would lose out most intensely, even when the overall economy has a net gain. In this case, multi-trillion dollar industry with money to burn making useful idiots think there is way more controversy than there actually is.

Those arguing that we take a liberal approach to risk haven't made their case, either. I am very conservative when it comes to accepting risk with catastrophic potential consequences.

You can make the same argument for protectionist trade policies. If free trade weren't so economically onerous, there wouldn't be so much opposition.

Fuck. I did it again. I took your dishonest arguments at face value.

You don't care about the truth, only telling just enough of it, to make your viewpoint seem reasonable. You really do disgust me. Ick.

Citizen's United is the 500 lbs gorilla in this particular train of thought. The rallies, advertising, and political donations have been well documented in this thread.

BTW, Curry is a paid forecaster for fossil fuel companies and she uses a lot of the typical debunked arguments like the pause and models not being perfect as valid denunciations. The mistake you are making with Yoni is allowing him to dictate the argument when his premise is garbage. The argument should be what Curry's arguments actually are not this beating around the bush where the bush is trying to feed her credibility obliquely.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The cost of these disasters is borne out by reinsurers. (who take the catastrophic parts of risks on property and casualty policies)

It is their business. They have hundreds of billions of dollars, and their existence at stake.

Fucking moronic partisan pedo-defending hacks love to point out increased development as the driver of increased losses, while down playing climate change.

Munich Re doesn't give a shit about their feelings. They have too much money at stake for dishonest arguments.

They say:
Yeah, we're driving climate change.
It's getting worse.
The trend line indicates it will continue to get worse.

What scares me the most is potential feedback loops that this warming my trigger, such as thawing permafrost releasing more greenhouse gases, or crystalline methane on sea floors.

The analogy I have read best is a light switch, you can gently increase the pressure on the switch without flipping it, but at some point, it flips and turns on whatever process it controls.

The conservative approach to risk dictates you don't go around pushing buttons on a complex machine you don't understand. That is a recipe for disaster.

What I find funny is people who would call themselves "conservative" are so liberal with risk.

Especially when there is a lot of economic benefit to limiting CO2 emissions. If someone says "it costs too much" but never tells you any information about the benefits, that is a time to be skeptical.

Or the increasing populations that cannot afford insurance. I have family in Houston and they decided not to pay for flood insurance because of cost and misleading temporal tags on flood plains. When 100 year floods happened within a dozen years time its time to reevaluate that decision.

My fam got lucky but many obviously did not. You know that very well considering your philanthropy.

Bottomline is that risk exposure and hazard indices are increasing at a rate that far outstrips what should be expected given growth in population or economics. 5 times as much in 20 years.

[RandomGuy]

Or the increasing populations that cannot afford insurance. I have family in Houston and they decided not to pay for flood insurance because of cost and misleading temporal tags on flood plains. When 100 year floods happened within a dozen years time its time to reevaluate that decision.

My fam got lucky but many obviously did not. You know that very well considering your philanthropy.

Bottomline is that risk exposure and hazard indices are increasing at a rate that far outstrips what should be expected given growth in population or economics. 5 times as much in 20 years.

Bottom line indeed.

A bottom line that will be ignored by people who have bought into the economic alarmism and deviate from prudent conservatives risk management principles.

[RandomGuy]

Citizen's United is the 500 lbs gorilla in this particular train of thought. The rallies, advertising, and political donations have been well documented in this thread.

BTW, Curry is a paid forecaster for fossil fuel companies and she uses a lot of the typical debunked arguments like the pause and models not being perfect as valid denunciations. The mistake you are making with Yoni is allowing him to dictate the argument when his premise is garbage. The argument should be what Curry's arguments actually are not this beating around the bush where the bush is trying to feed her credibility obliquely.

Curry makes some modestly valid points. Data should be as transparent as possible.

If one digs, these are her primary criticisms. Very mild ones at that. Yoni's advancement of her is dishonest on its face, because he is attempting to create "significant" scientific disagreement, with some very thin broth. Essentially cherry-picking one expert in a field of thousands, something he himself admits is dishonest.
.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Curry makes some modestly valid points. Data should be as transparent as possible.

If one digs, these are her primary criticisms. Very mild ones at that. Yoni's advancement of her is dishonest on its face, because he is attempting to create "significant" scientific disagreement, with some very thin broth. Essentially cherry-picking one expert in a field of thousands, something he himself admits is dishonest.
.

The data normalization is posted publicly. The NOAA stuff that WC likes to handwave at certainly is.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access

[Chris]

NASA REPORT: Antarctic Ice Sheet is Actually… Growing By Billions of Tons?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

[spurraider21]

nice 2015 article. now show the article that shows that the arctic ice sheet is shrinking at a much faster rate than the antarctic decline

[FuzzyLumpkins]

NASA REPORT: Antarctic Ice Sheet is Actually… Growing By Billions of Tons?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

When the article talks about warmer moist air increasing precipitation and the debate over the equilibrium as it's snow serves to replace the ice that is melting in the warmer ocean, I guess you just completely missed the significance of all that.

Protip: no one is arguing that antarctica is not cold anymore.

[Wild Cobra]

When the article talks about warmer moist air increasing precipitation and the debate over the equilibrium as it's snow serves to replace the ice that is melting in the warmer ocean, I guess you just completely missed the significance of all that.

Protip: no one is arguing that antarctica is not cold anymore.

Your stupidity is noted.

As years go by, that snow will be compressed and become part of ice sheets.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your stupidity is noted.

As years go by, that snow will be compressed and become part of ice sheets.

:lol No one is disputing that, dimwit.

The point is that antarctica can warm and still not thaw. The mean temperature is in the neighborhood of -50 degrees centigrade. The highest temperature at the south pole ever recorded is -12 degrees. If it gets to -8 it's still frozen.

The takeaway here is that Antarctica is a desert and the climate there is changing by increased precipitation from the increasingly moist air; evaporation is not a challenging concept for most. Unlike the arctic there is no ocean flow to circulate to the south pole. As such it stays frozen year round on the interior while the perimeter is being melted by the ever warming oceans.

[RandomGuy]

Citizen's United is the 500 lbs gorilla in this particular train of thought. The rallies, advertising, and political donations have been well documented in this thread.

BTW, Curry is a paid forecaster for fossil fuel companies and she uses a lot of the typical debunked arguments like the pause and models not being perfect as valid denunciations. The mistake you are making with Yoni is allowing him to dictate the argument when his premise is garbage. The argument should be what Curry's arguments actually are not this beating around the bush where the bush is trying to feed her credibility obliquely.

Pretty much. Every time one digs into Yonivore's slick arguments they always tend to have the same slime at the center. It's like an m & m filled with jellied pond scum. As long as you don't bite down it tastes like sugar, but the instant you do, you realize what is at the center and it is never as good as advertised.

[Chris]

Climate Change no longer designated a “National Security Threat”


It appears that the Trump Administration may be doling out even more policy goodness this Christmas season.

A few short weeks ago it was being reported that the 2,400-page National Defense Authorization Act that Congress sent to President Trump contained language that contradicted his views on what constituted a national security threat.

…Changing climate is a “direct threat” to U.S. national security, endangering 128 military bases with sea rise and global destabilization that could fuel terror groups, according to the NDAA, which is a bipartisan compromise struck by the House and Senate.


The bill orders a Pentagon report on the top 10 at-risk bases and what should be done to protect them.

Trump, who has described himself as a climate change skeptic, indicated he will sign the $700 billion policy bill, calling it an historic boost for the military that “could not come at a better time for our nation.” The provision is one among hundreds that offer defense reforms as well as more aircraft, ships and troops.

However, Fox News contributor/senior editor at The Federalist Mollie Hemingway is now reporting that White House is reversing course and will eliminate climate change from a list of national security threats.

The National Security Strategy to be released on Monday will emphasize the importance of balancing energy security with economic development and environmental protection, according to a source who has seen the document and shared excerpts of a late draft.

“Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system,” a draft of the National Security Strategy slated to be released on Monday said. “U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth, energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.”

This matches President Trump’s vision, sometimes shared using his trademark hyperbole, that the United States needs to emphasize national security and economic growth over climate change.

As this change occurs, 14,000 troops are in Japan as North Korea continues to threaten war with the west…to address a real national security threat.

The pride of the US Navy the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan has arrived outside Okinawa with fearsome guided-missile destroyers USS Stethem, USS Chafee and USS Mustin.

A staggering 14,000 troops will take part in the exercises as the White House ordered flexing of US military might in the region.

US Navy F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets from the Carrier Air Wing (CVW) are expected to be involved.

Marines and naval officers will take part in firing tests, fly overs and mock battles in a bid to ensure they are each ready for conflict with the North.

Highly trained maritime patrol and reconnaissance squadron will spend ten days in the area, in an action which is likely to provoke North Korea.

As a reminder, China has built several refugee camps along its border with North Korea. Paired with this development, it appears that not only are security threats being listed, they are also being addressed instead of being kicked like a can down the road of history.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/12/climate-change-no-longer-designated-a-national-security-threat/

[Wild Cobra]

Only incompetent politicians think its a "national security threat."

[boutons_deux]

Let it go: The Arctic will never be frozen again

a group of polar scientists made a startling declaration: The Arctic as we once knew it is no more.

The region is now definitively trending toward an ice-free state, the scientists said, with wide-ranging ramifications for ecosystems, national security, and the stability of the global climate system.

It was a fitting venue for an eye-opening reminder that, on its current path, civilization is engaged in an existential gamble with the planet’s life-support system.

a group of polar scientists made a startling declaration: The Arctic as we once knew it is no more.

The region is now definitively trending toward an ice-free state, the scientists said, with wide-ranging ramifications for ecosystems, national security, and the stability of the global climate system.

It was a fitting venue for an eye-opening reminder that, on its current path, civilization is engaged in an existential gamble with the planet’s life-support system.

“What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic — it affects the rest of the planet,”

http://grist.org/article/let-it-go-the-arctic-will-never-be-frozen-again/

And as Exxon's scientists told Exxon decades ago about Exxon's carbon pollution, an ice free Arctic is great, meant more drilling.

[boutons_deux]

Warming Seas Double Snowfall Around North America’s Tallest Peaks

Snowfall on a major summit in North America’s highest mountain range has more than doubled since the beginning of the Industrial Age, according to a study from Dartmouth College, the University of Maine, and the University of New Hampshire.

The research not only finds a dramatic increase in snowfall, it further explains connections in the global climate system by attributing the record accumulation to warmer waters thousands of miles away in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans.

The research demonstrates that modern snowfall in the iconic Alaska Range is unprecedented for at least the past 1200 years and far exceeds normal variability.

“We were shocked when we first saw how much snowfall has increased,”

https://scienceblog.com/498254/warming-seas-double-snowfall-around-north-americas-tallest-peaks/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+%28Science Blog.com%29

[Wild Cobra]

Warming Seas Double Snowfall Around North America’s Tallest Peaks

Snowfall on a major summit in North America’s highest mountain range has more than doubled since the beginning of the Industrial Age, according to a study from Dartmouth College, the University of Maine, and the University of New Hampshire.

The research not only finds a dramatic increase in snowfall, it further explains connections in the global climate system by attributing the record accumulation to warmer waters thousands of miles away in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans.

The research demonstrates that modern snowfall in the iconic Alaska Range is unprecedented for at least the past 1200 years and far exceeds normal variability.

“We were shocked when we first saw how much snowfall has increased,”

https://scienceblog.com/498254/warming-seas-double-snowfall-around-north-americas-tallest-peaks/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+%28Science Blog.com%29



So if all this extra precipitation is building snowpacks faster than normal, why the alarmism?

[Chris]

So if all this extra precipitation is building snowpacks faster than normal, why the alarmism?

Because Al Gore needs money.

[dabom]

So if all this extra precipitation is building snowpacks faster than normal, why the alarmism?

Are you a fucking dumbass? :lmao

[pgardn]

So if all this extra precipitation is building snowpacks faster than normal, why the alarmism?

It snowed in San Antonio.

Take that alarmists...

Christ...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So if all this extra precipitation is building snowpacks faster than normal, why the alarmism?

Just because the south pole has not thawed does not mean it is not warming. Warmer air = more humidity = more precipitation.

Meanwhile the north pole remaining freezing doesn't matter because ocean currents move the warmer water to the colder north melting the ice there. The net including thermal expansion is rising seas.

This was just explained to you a week or so ago. Your dumbass has issue learning new things.

[Wild Cobra]

Just because the south pole has not thawed does not mean it is not warming. Warmer air = more humidity = more precipitation.

Meanwhile the north pole remaining freezing doesn't matter because ocean currents move the warmer water to the colder north melting the ice there. The net including thermal expansion is rising seas.

This was just explained to you a week or so ago. Your dumbass has issue learning new things.

And when this cycle changes direction, whet will your stupid ass say then?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And when this cycle changes direction, whet will your stupid ass say then?

We've been over this before. We're on the far side of a solar maximum. BEST analyzed the cycles like ENSO, solar, etc and determined that we are on a sustained warming trend.

Your dumbass has been over this with us in this thread at least a dozen times. You still don't get it, partschanger.

[Wild Cobra]

We've been over this before. We're on the far side of a solar maximum. BEST analyzed the cycles like ENSO, solar, etc and determined that we are on a sustained warming trend.

Your dumbass has been over this with us in this thread at least a dozen times. You still don't get it, partschanger.

Believe as you wish.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Believe as you wish.

It's not an issue of belief. It is an issue of being able to follow the spectral analysis and thermodynamics. You believe. I know.

[Wild Cobra]

It's not an issue of belief. It is an issue of being able to follow the spectral analysis and thermodynamics. You believe. I know.

Yes, you have lied to yourself so often, you believe your own lies.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, you have lied to yourself so often, you believe your own lies.

What a meaningless throwaway line. There is empiricism and then there is the halfbaked harebrained schemes of a partschanger. The sheer number of gross oversimplifications, ignorance, and generalized nonsense from you in this thread is legendary.

You won't even discuss science anymore you've been shamed so often. You resort to quips and snark instead.

[Chris]

Here's The Latest Global Warming Narrative FAIL



https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2017/08/gettyimages-461874824.jpg?itok=dNJrxRzA





Remember when we were told that ever-ambiguous "Climate Change" (formally known as "Global Warming") was going to leave us with milder winters and a decrease in snow? Well, that narrative has caught a slight snag: the United States has seen a steady trend in increased snow.

"Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point," predicted the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, in 2001.

WBAL-TV Chief Meteorologist Tom Tasselmyer reported an increase in snow cover over the last four Christmas holidays, up from 36% in 2014 to 49% in 2017.

945336228836184064

New York meteorologist and Weather-Track, Inc. President Kevin Williams highlighted an even longer trend in snowier winters:

944565024072306688

Moreover, Pennsylvania just broke a state record for snowfall. According to Cleveland, Ohio's National Weather Service, Erie shattered records with a total of 53 inches of snowfall in a 30-hour period. "This is the greatest 2-day total in the entire state of PA (prev. record 44" in Morgantown, PA 3/20-21/1958)."

945626631841951744

But don't let the data fool you. Weather has nothing to do with climate, unless it fits the Left's narrative, you rube. This remains "settled science," and anyone who dares to question the climate gurus are heretics.

www.dailywire.com/news/25102/heres-latest-global-warming-narrative-fail-amanda-prestigiacomo

[pgardn]

Here's The Latest Global Warming Narrative FAIL



https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2017/08/gettyimages-461874824.jpg?itok=dNJrxRzA

You have not a Fckn clue.
Find a new forum.

[Chris]

Commander in Chief :lol

946531657229701120

[spurraider21]

god, what an asshat

[spurraider21]

what was the theory called again? new york warming? or global...

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/marshallshepherd/files/2017/12/Slide1-6.jpg?width=960

[Chris]

god, what an asshat

Here you go buddy.

How You Can Support The Paris Accord & The Fight Against Climate Change

http://s2.r29static.com//bin/entry/699/340x408/1801410/image.png


On Thursday, President Trump delivered a stunning blow to the fight against climate change by announcing he will withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord. The deal, signed by every country except Syria and Nicaragua, was designed to commit the global community to fighting Earth's rising temperatures by reducing carbon emissions.
And even though the president doesn't think the accord is good for the U.S., most voters disagree with him: A 2016 national poll by the Yale Program on Climate Communication found that 69% of registered voters supported U.S. participation in the deal. Only 13% said the country should not be involved.

As of now, the United States is the second largest emitter of carbon in the world. Under the Obama administration, the U.S. committed to reduce carbon emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025. However, these terms were not set in stone. Countries under the treaty could change their goals and wouldn't be punished if they missed their targets.
Trump said that even though the U.S. is leaving the agreement, he's willing to open negotiations to possibly re-enter. But in a joint statement, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said this is not possible.
If, unlike President Trump, you don't believe global warming is a "hoax," you can still support the Paris climate accord and join the fight against climate change. Below, we list what you can do, starting today.
Contact your representatives at all levels
More than 180 mayors from cities across the U.S. and from both sides of the aisle have committed to uphold the goals in the Paris climate deal. And at least 10 governors have said their states will also continue to support the agreement. In Congress, Democrats and several Republicans condemned Trump's decision to withdraw from the accord.
So, it's time to pick up the phone and call your elected officials to let them know that the president's choice doesn't mean we can't do anything to fight climate change.

Urge your local representatives to establish climate goals for your city and make legislative efforts to meet said targets. And when you call your state legislators and governor's offices, tell them to push forward legislation that can make it easier to develop a clean energy economy in order to help the environment and create jobs. The same goes for members of Congress, who you can also tell to enact legislation to curb and regulate carbon emissions.
If you're shy about calling people, don't worry. Here is a handy guide on how to contact your congressperson, which includes a simple script you can modify when calling any of your representatives.
Learn which businesses agreed/disagreed with the deal
Several large U.S. companies condemned Trump's decision to withdraw from the deal and said they were going to continue their environmental efforts. Research these companies and the steps they are taking to help the environment, and decide whether or not you want to give them your business.
The reverse also works: If an organization urged the president to leave the accord, consider not supporting them. Make a statement with your wallet.
Volunteer or donate to environmental organizations
If you have the means, consider donating to environmental and climate organizations such as Earth Justice, the Sierra Club, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, or NextGen Climate Action.
And if you're interested in doing more than donating and are able to do so, you can always volunteer with these organizations or look for one-off opportunities. The website VolunteerMatch.org is a good place to check out if you don't know where to start.

Speak up on social media and IRL
If you're passionate about the environment, this is the time to speak up. Share accurate, credible information about climate change and the Paris agreement. (Here are some tips on how to spot and avoid sharing fake news.) If your friends and family have questions, try to answer them.
Climate change is an issue that affects every single of one of us — no matter your gender, race, nationality, socioeconomic class, or education level. However, certain groups like women and people of color are more likely to be deeply impacted by the effects of climate change. The best we can do is educate others so we can work together to fight it.
This story was originally published on June 2, 2017.

http://www.refinery29.com/2017/06/157244/how-to-support-paris-accord-fight-climate-change




I bolded the part where you can help make a difference.

[spurraider21]

The free market has proven incapable of addressing the issue, because there isn't enough economic incentive. It's going to have to get done through legislation/policy... but the people currently making decisions treat science as a rorschach test. Can't make an informed decision if you're uninformed, and that's what we're dealing with at the top.

[dabom]

Commander in Chief :lol

946531657229701120

Doesn't even know what global warming means. :lol

Even acknowledges Extreme Weather Patterns associated with climate change. :lmao

[Chris]

Doesn't even know what global warming means. :lol

Even acknowledges Extreme Weather Patterns associated with climate change. :lmao

Trump giving the middle finger to the Globalists. Good times. :lol

[dabom]

Trump giving the middle finger to the Globalists. Good times. :lol

Can you tell me who these globalists are?

[Chris]

Can you tell me who these globalists are?

I could yes. Will I? No.

[dabom]

I could yes. Will I? No.

Short answer: you don't know. :lol

[Chris]

Al Gore’s Dire, 9-Year-Old Prediction for Today’s World Proves Yet Again He Is a Fraud


Why does anybody even listen to Al Gore anymore? Almost nobody in the world has been so wrong, so consistently, yet still been seen as some sort of guru by so many followers.

Case in point: Nine years ago this month, the former vice president made the bold prediction that the north polar ice cap would be completely ice-free in five years.

Yes, back in 2008, the failed presidential candidate told a German audience that “the entire North Polarized cap will disappear in 5 years,” according to Gateway Pundit.

The German media covered the prediction at the time, but the article and video appears to have disappeared into the black hole of the internet.

Not to worry. Gore repeated the claim several times over the next several years, each time gravely predicting that the northern ice caps were teetering on the edge of disaster. Here’s the climate con artist — er, expert — talking about the same topic in 2009.

MsioIw4bvzI

“Former Vice President Al Gore references new computer modeling to suggest that the north polar ice cap may lose virtually all of its ice within the next seven years,” reported FORA.tv.

“(M)odels suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” declared Gore at the 2009 conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.

What has actually happened? Spoilers: There’s still ice in the arctic, and the world hasn’t burst into flames.

“Ice growth during November 2017 averaged 30,900 square miles per day,” stated the National Snow and Ice Data Center earlier this month.

“This was stronger than the average rate for the month of 26,900 square miles per day. Ice growth was particularly rapid within Hudson Bay, Baffin Bay, and the Kara Sea,” the scientific agency continued.

That latest data confirmed recent findings about both polar ice caps — they’re not going anywhere.

“Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979,” reported Forbes Magazine in 2015.

RELATED: Climate Change Crew Silent After New Year’s Eve Forecasts Suggest Warming Is a Hoax

“Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average,” the magazine continued. “The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.”

Think about this for a moment. Al Gore and his climate change fanatics were completely unable to make a basic prediction just five years into the future.

Not only were they incorrect, they were shockingly wrong.

That was only five years, using the most advanced scientific data and computer models available. They were still wrong… Yet we’re supposed to believe that climate scientists can predict what the world will look like in the next century?

Not only that, but we’re expected to cripple our economy and funnel money from the pockets of Americans to other nations, based on guesswork.

The reality is that the earth is billions of years old, yet we have only been keeping good temperature records for a few hundred years at best.

This is like trying to predict page after page of a book based on just the opening line. It can’t be done — yet Gore and others like him want to pretend that they are oracles of the future, under the guise of “science.”

True scientists question assumptions and encourage others to prove their theories wrong. When alternative thoughts are attacked as heresy, it’s a pretty good sign that blind belief and political agendas have taken over science… and now that’s all that the liberal crowd has left.

conservativetribune.com/al-gores-dire-9-year-prediction/

[spurraider21]

Scientists are wrong because gore, a non scientist, was wrong. Brilliant!

[Chris]

The Earth Is So Hot from Global Warming, Sharks Are Freezing to Death

https://conservativetribune.com/global-warming-sharks-freezing/

[spurraider21]

The Earth Is So Hot from Global Warming, Sharks Are Freezing to Death

https://conservativetribune.com/global-warming-sharks-freezing/


what was the theory called again? new york warming? or global...

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/marshallshepherd/files/2017/12/Slide1-6.jpg?width=960

[pgardn]

The Earth Is So Hot from Global Warming, Sharks Are Freezing to Death

https://conservativetribune.com/global-warming-sharks-freezing/

Cool.
Literally.

Chris...
Does evolution occur in populations of living organisms?

[spurraider21]

evolution is a globalist hoax

[Chris]

Cool.
Literally.

Chris...
Does evolution occur in populations of living organisms?

I can't help you go to the bathroom.

[Wild Cobra]

The free market has proven incapable of addressing the issue, because there isn't enough economic incentive. It's going to have to get done through legislation/policy... but the people currently making decisions treat science as a rorschach test. Can't make an informed decision if you're uninformed, and that's what we're dealing with at the top.

OK, so the free market doesn't agree with you.

So?

[spurraider21]

OK, so the free market doesn't agree with you.

So?
The free market has shown incapable of solving many problems that ended up requiring government intervention. Our history on race/segregation

[RandomGuy]

Does evolution occur in populations of living organisms?


I can't help you go to the bathroom.

I think it is a good question.

Does evolution occur in populations of living organisms?

[RandomGuy]

The free market has shown incapable of solving many problems that ended up requiring government intervention. Our history on race/segregation

Tragedy of the Commons.

Monopolies.

Cartels.

All free market failures.

The free market is about distributing goods, not solving societal problems, which is what governments are for.

[Chris]

https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26167702_1806983782934098_579837968338462479_n.jpg ?oh=c64453e5b2438007fad1c21b94f68517&oe=5AEDE9F5

[spurraider21]

great!

[Splits]

https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26167702_1806983782934098_579837968338462479_n.jpg ?oh=c64453e5b2438007fad1c21b94f68517&oe=5AEDE9F5

oiC_HG3u-nk


'Soul-crushing' video of starving polar bear exposes climate crisis, experts say (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/08/starving-polar-bear-arctic-climate-change-video)
?Fri 8 Dec ‘17 23.27 GMT

Footage from Canada’s Arctic shows emaciated animal seeking food in scene that left researchers ‘pushing through their tears’

Video footage captured in Canada’s Arctic (https://www.theguardian.com/world/arctic) has offered a devastating look at the impact climate change is having on polar bears in the region, showing an emaciated bear clinging to life as it scrounged for food on iceless land.

The scene was recorded by the conservation group Sea Legacy during a late summer expedition in Baffin Island. “My entire Sea Legacy team was pushing through their tears and emotions while documenting this dying polar bear,” photographer Paul Nicklen wrote on social media (https://www.instagram.com/p/BcU-6PsAoIp/) after publishing the footage this week.

The video shows the bear struggling to walk as it searches for food. The bear eventually comes across a trashcan used by Inuit fishermen, rummaging through it with little luck.

The bear, which was not old, probably died within hours of being captured on video, said Nicklen. “This is what starvation looks like. The muscles atrophy. No energy. It’s a slow, painful death.”

The film-makers drew a direct line between the bear’s state and climate change. “As temperatures rise and sea ice melts, polar bears lose access to the main staple of their diets – seals,” the video noted. “Starving, and running out of energy, they are forced to wander into human settlements for any source of food.”

[Chris]

oiC_HG3u-nk

Darwinism bad now.

[Chris]

tee hee

949395481146339332

[pgardn]

And Chris is brain dead...

[Chris]

*grumble mumble

[spurraider21]

Memes trump decades of research

[Pavlov]

:lol happens every time it gets chilly.

[pgardn]

I can't help you go to the bathroom.

Ok. Very good Chris. You can go to the bathroom for yourself, nice.

Do you believe in biological evolution?

[RandomGuy]

I can't help you go to the bathroom.

Does evolution occur in populations of living organisms?

[spurraider21]

Does evolution occur in populations of living organisms?
inb4 micro evolution and kent hovind youtubes

[RandomGuy]

inb4 micro evolution and kent hovind youtubes

yeah, we beat that shit to death years ago. Evolution is real, and best explains how life arose to the forms it has taken today.

[Chris]

Does evolution occur in populations of living organisms?

http://bfy.tw/Fz15

[spurraider21]

http://bfy.tw/Fz15
http://bfy.tw/Fz1J

[boutons_deux]

I remember reading 30+ years ago that AGW would result is much greater, more extreme weather instability

Jet stream changes since 1960s linked to more extreme weather

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180112091209.htm

[RandomGuy]

Does evolution occur in populations of living organisms?


http://bfy.tw/Fz15

Wow, you ARE one of those idiots who thinks the theory of evolution is fake.

[Wild Cobra]

I remember reading 30+ years ago that AGW would result is much greater, more extreme weather instability

Jet stream changes since 1960s linked to more extreme weather

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180112091209.htm




Which came first... The chicken, or the egg?

What if the changing jetstream is due to something else, and patterns of temperature change with it, instead?

[DarrinS]

My kids schools are closed tomorrow

because global w climate change

[spurraider21]

My kids schools are closed tomorrow

because global w climate change
but did you take a thermometer to 2 different classrooms to disprove the theory?

[DarrinS]

but did you take a thermometer to 2 different classrooms to disprove the theory?

It’s an undisproveable theory, evidently

[spurraider21]

It’s an undisproveable theory, evidently
of course it isn't. just that it probably takes more than walking around the block with a thermometer :lol

[boutons_deux]

CHEVRON’S LAWYER, SPEAKING FOR MAJOR OIL COMPANIES, SAYS CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND IT’S YOUR FAULT

In a court hearing in San Francisco, oil companies publicly backed the science of climate change


major oil companies concurred with the “scientific consensus,” saying it was “extremely likely” that human activity has been driving global warming since the middle of the 20th century. They just don’t think they can be sued for it (https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/20/17031676/climate-change-lawsuits-fossil-fuel-new-york-santa-cruz).

“Chevron accepts what the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] has reached consensus on concerning science and climate change,”

said Theodore Boutrous (https://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/person/196823/theodore-j-boutrous-jr), who represents Chevron and is heading up the assorted legal team for the five oil companies that are defendants in this lawsuit.

But, he said, that didn’t mean that a civil lawsuit was the right way to address climate change.

“It’s a global issue that requires global action,” he said.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/22/17151532/climate-tutorial-san-francisco-oakland-lawsuits-judge-alsup-chevron-exxon (https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/22/17151532/climate-tutorial-san-francisco-oakland-lawsuits-judge-alsup-chevron-exxon)

[RandomGuy]

Leaked EPA email tells staff to play up climate denial, ignore actual data

https://www.yahoo.com/news/leaked-epa-email-tells-staff-195158971.html


It's no secret that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt disagrees with the overwhelming evidence tying human emissions of greenhouse gases to increasing global average temperatures, sea level rise, and a host of other problems for humanity.

He has, after all, moved to scuttle the Obama administration's regulations that would limit such emissions from power plants, ordered the EPA's climate change websites to go dark, and advocated for a televised debate on climate science, among other actions.

Now comes word that on Tuesday, EPA officials distributed talking points about climate science to its top public affairs staff throughout the country, providing eight talking points about the agency's work on helping America adapt to a warming planet.

SEE ALSO: In court, oil company admits reality of human-caused global warming, denies guilt

The talking points, first reported by the HuffPost, are contradicted by both the agency's previous climate science website as well as a federal climate report that EPA scientists contributed to.

The email including the new talking points was sent on behalf of Joel D. Scheraga, the agency's senior advisor for climate adaptation — a program that, ironically, Pruitt has sought to eliminate.


Kate Marvel
@DrKateMarvel
I think it’s only fair that if climate scientists have to explain AGAIN why we’re warming the planet, physicists should have to explain how come stuff falls down https://twitter.com/brady_dennis/status/979044838594236416 …

12:48 PM - Mar 28, 2018
183
97 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
According to the email in the HuffPost report, which the EPA confirmed to them as authentic, two of the bullet points outright contradict and distort the findings of mainstream climate scientists, saying:

"Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue."

"While there has been extensive research and a host of published reports on climate change, clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it."

A federal report published in November, known as the Climate Change Special Report, states clearly and unequivocally that the burning of fossil fuels for energy and other human activities cause global warming.

The report — which is the most which is the most up-to-date and comprehensive guide to climate science findings — states (original emphasis included):

(In the language of the report, "extremely likely" means a greater than 95 percent chance.)

[spurraider21]

Merchants of Doubt

[boutons_deux]

Exxon knew in the '70s, and Shell did later

Damning internal documents show Shell knew about climate change causes in the 1980s (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/4/5/1754623/-Damning-internal-documents-show-Shell-knew-about-climate-change-causes-in-the-1980s)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/4/5/1754623/-Damning-internal-documents-show-Shell-knew-about-climate-change-causes-in-the-1980s?detail=emaildkre

===================


HATE TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO


Shell predicted it would get sued over climate change back in ’98.

Now, those lawsuits are here, and that prediction could bite the multinational oil company in the ass.

https://grist.org/briefly/shell-predicted-it-would-get-sued-over-climate-change-back-in-98/

====================

Shell Faces Unprecedented Legal Challenge For Its Failure To Combat Climate Change

Friends of the Earth Netherlands has announced that it will take British–Dutch multinational oil and gas company Shell to court if it does not immediately act on demands “to stop its destruction of the climate”

which, if won, could significantly limit the company’s investments in oil and gas around the world.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/05/shell-faces-unprecedented-legal-challenge-for-its-failure-to-combat-climate-change/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[spurraider21]

same shit happened in the tobacco industry. cigarette manufacturers knew about the health risks back when they were still publicly denying it

[Chris]

Does Al Gore have enough money yet to combat this devastating predicament?

[spurraider21]

Does Al Gore have enough money yet to combat this devastating predicament?

fuck gore. he's not an authority on the matter, just a fat mouthpiece

[Chris]

I want to believe it's true. Convince me.

Better yet - give me solutions.

[spurraider21]

I want to believe it's true.
:lol bullshit tbh


Convince me.
that's next to impossible, imho, since you think its a liberal globalist marxist hoax. your political agenda will dominate any scientific discussion.


Better yet - give me solutions.
if the problem is increased CO2 concentrations due in large part to increased emissions, the goal would be to reduce emissions to prevent further accumulation, while then seeking technology to safely remove large quantities of atmospheric CO2 safely. i personally dno if the latter is even plausible... ignorant as to that field of research, tbh

[DarrinS]

Humans can’t control the climate. Just FYI. We are currently in an interglacial period (thankfully).

[Chris]

:lol bullshit tbh


that's next to impossible, imho, since you think its a liberal globalist marxist hoax. your political agenda will dominate any scientific discussion.


if the problem is increased CO2 concentrations due in large part to increased emissions, the goal would be to reduce emissions to prevent further accumulation, while then seeking technology to safely remove large quantities of atmospheric CO2 safely. i personally dno if the latter is even plausible... ignorant as to that field of research, tbh

Tesla had too many solutions so our CIA got involved.

[spurraider21]

Humans can’t control the climate. Just FYI. We are currently in an interglacial period (thankfully).
well that's relieving. you should inform the scientific community of your findings. collect your nobel prize.

also, "control the climate" is pretty vague. you referring to our inability to alter the milankovich cycle or solar activity? because yes darrin, there are aspects of the climate that are firmly out of our control and beyond our influence. we can't cause weather or storms on demand. or do you mean nothing we do can impact the climate in any way?

[spurraider21]

Tesla had too many solutions so our CIA got involved.
elaborate

and explain why it's relevant to climate change

[Chris]

elaborate

and explain why it's relevant to climate change

Look up Tesla CIA tbh it's a long story. Tesla had a plan for free electricity for everyone and a super weapon (see scalar weapons) which would end all wars. All electric cars and appliances/tools would be pretty good for the climate I'm assuming.

[DarrinS]

well that's relieving. you should inform the scientific community of your findings. collect your nobel prize.

also, "control the climate" is pretty vague. you referring to our inability to alter the milankovich cycle or solar activity? because yes darrin, there are aspects of the climate that are firmly out of our control and beyond our influence. we can't cause weather or storms on demand. or do you mean nothing we do can impact the climate in any way?


All living things on the planet impact the climate. No denying that.

But there have been dramatic climate changes long before the industrial revolution and they will continue to happen, regardless of what humans do.

Climate change alarmists are the real climate change deniers.

[spurraider21]

Look up Tesla CIA tbh it's a long story. Tesla had a plan for free electricity for everyone and a super weapon (see scalar weapons) which would end all wars. All electric cars and appliances/tools would be pretty good for the climate I'm assuming.
gimme the tl;dr with some links backing it up tbh... you made the claim

[spurraider21]

All living things on the planet impact the climate. No denying that.
to the same degree? humans have no more impact than say, cows?


But there have been dramatic climate changes long before the industrial revolution and they will continue to happen, regardless of what humans do.
i dont think you'll find a single climate scientist, even an "alarmist" scientist who disagrees that the climate has seen drastic changes long before the industrial revolution, or that we will continue to see this cycles, regardless of human activity. that doesn't mean humans right now aren't having an impact on the climate in a noticeable way


Climate change alarmists are the real climate change deniers.
this doesn't mean anything. "alarmist" scientists all agree that the climate has gone through drastic cycles that have nothing to do with human activity

[spurraider21]

"if the climate ever changed before humans, then humans cant possibly have an effect now"

:lol

[DarrinS]

to the same degree? humans have no more impact than say, cows?



I’ll just pick a single insect — termite. More biomass than humans and produces methane, a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. That’s one insect!

[DarrinS]

"if the climate ever changed before humans, then humans cant possibly have an effect now"

:lol

No one is saying this.

[spurraider21]

I’ll just pick a single insect — termite. More biomass than humans and produces methane, a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. That’s one insect!
Yes. Methane per unit is a stronger greenhouse gas than co2.

But it does methane, in its relative quantity, have a greater effect on our climate than co2?

have you read any papers suggesting that methane has been or is currently a more impactful factor on average temperatures?

[spurraider21]

No one is saying this.
You’ve been implying it in your posts.

[Chris]

gimme the tl;dr with some links backing it up tbh... you made the claim

I just gave you the tl/dr :lol If you're really that interested I also gave you instructions on how to look it up.

[spurraider21]

I just gave you the tl/dr :lol If you're really that interested I also gave you instructions on how to look it up.
So make an outlandish claim and then tell me to do your homework for you

[spurraider21]

so darrin drops in, says things that aren't disputed by ANY climate scientist (the earth has its own natural climate cycles, methane is more potent than co2), and then mutters something about alarmists... and somehow thinks he's making a point?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so darrin drops in, says things that aren't disputed by ANY climate scientist (the earth has its own natural climate cycles, methane is more potent than co2), and then mutters something about alarmists... and somehow thinks he's making a point?

It was much more fun back in the day when they would spell out their nonsense in it's full gibbering idiot glory. Darrin posting crap that he had never read and couldn't understand. WC with his ocean as a soda pop and solar burps.

Now you get the coy scientologist routine.

[Chris]

Cold AF today, I thought it was supposed to be getting warmer?

[spurraider21]

Cold AF today, I thought it was supposed to be getting warmer?
thanks chris for exposing the global warming hoax

[koriwhat]

Cold AF today, I thought it was supposed to be getting warmer?

you in satx? today is decent but yesterday sucked!

[Chris]

thanks chris for exposing the global warming hoax

I wonder what the new name will be once they decide Climate Change is just as dumb.

[Chris]

you in satx? today is decent but yesterday sucked!

Just northwest of you got down to 36 here.

[spurraider21]

I wonder what the new name will be once they decide Climate Change is just as dumb.
what do you mean?

[Chris]

what do you mean?

Global warming turned into climate change. What's hard to understand about that?

[koriwhat]

I wonder what the new name will be once they decide Climate Change is just as dumb.

lol for real though :tu


Just northwest of you got down to 36 here.

wow i didn't even realize it was that cold last night. i was def freezing my ass off though and my back was killing me all night from the weather. i'm the type who'd rather it be 110 degrees than 70 degrees.

[spurraider21]

Global warming turned into climate change. What's hard to understand about that?
when did that change happen? i must have missed it.

[Chris]

when did that change happen? i must have missed it.

You must have.

[Chris]

lol for real though :tu



wow i didn't even realize it was that cold last night. i was def freezing my ass off though and my back was killing me all night from the weather. i'm the type who'd rather it be 110 degrees than 70 degrees.

Typical bi-polar Texas weather

[spurraider21]

You must have.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.xwas the change in the 1950's?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x

[koriwhat]

Typical bi-polar Texas weather

indeed.

[spurraider21]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.xwas the change in the 1950's?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x
was the change in the 1800's?


In 1861, TYNDALL wrote that "if, as the above experiments indicated, the chief influence exercised by the aqeous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would aply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air...


The calculation by ARRHENIUS (1896) of the influence of carbon dioxide on the temperature was the most extensive made during the nineteenth century. In a series of articles CHAMBERLIN (1897, 1898, 1899) presented in detail the geological implications of the carbon dioxide theory. As a result of these early articles, during that period the carbon dioxide theory was probably the most widely held explanation of climatic change

[spurraider21]

Chris (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656) just trying to figure out when those liberal scientists changed the name to climate change. so far im seeing climate change being discussed in the 1800's.

how long have they been planning this :wow

[spurraider21]

oh i get it, in Inconvenient Truth, that fat pig Al Gore said "global warming" 23 times but never said "climate change."

therefore, up until that point, we can conclude that nobody ever called it climate change. disregard all evidence of it being used in earlier decades or centuries. can't be true. because al gore.

[spurraider21]

"changed the name from global warming to climate change" talking point going down like...

https://i.imgur.com/DwekylS.gif

[Chris]

The ol' quadruple post ending with a declaration of victory + meme :lol

Guess I better retire.

[spurraider21]

The ol' quadruple post ending with a declaration of victory + meme :lol

Guess I better retire.
you can go ahead and shut me down... when do you think they "stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change" :lol... the 1950's? 1890's? :lol

[Winehole23]

Shell thought so too:

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21511:Confidential-Shell-Oil-Report-Prompts-Lawsuit%3A-They-Knew-About-Climate-Change-Decades-Ago

[spurraider21]

merchants of doubt

[boutons_deux]

Study Says Low-Lying Islands Uninhabitable By Mid-Century
https://scienceblog.com/500543/study-says-low-lying-islands-uninhabitable-by-mid-century/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+%28Science Blog.com%29

Trash will be dead by then, but Sea-to-Lake will be underwater

[DarrinS]

I’ll just put this here

https://psmag.com/environment/mission-compostable

[spurraider21]

I’ll just put this here

https://psmag.com/environment/mission-compostable
cool.

al gore flies on private jets.

not sure what that means about the validity of the science though

[Chris]

Trump ain't no dummy - he saw through this con with his business acumen.

[spurraider21]

Trump ain't no dummy - he saw through this con with his business acumen.
he woulda seen through the "cigarettes are addictive and pose serious health risks" con too. if only he were president then too

[Chris]

he woulda seen through the "cigarettes are addictive and pose serious health risks" con too. if only he were president then too

?

[spurraider21]

?
self explanatory tbh, but i'll go ahead and clarify anyway

using "business acumen" to "see through" a major scientific issue is pretty retarded

somebody with great business acumen might have thought the whole "cigarettes are addictive and can cause serious health issues" was a con as an attempt to tax/regulate... and therefore the science behind it must be a hoax

tbh there were a lot of people, including people in government, who were saying all the cigarette health studies were bullshit and just a hoax to regulate business. the CEO's of all the major tobacco companies testified before congress as recently as the 90's, claiming that nicotine wasn't addictive, when they damn well knew it was.

because business acumen

[spurraider21]

btw i edited my post while you may or may not be responding, so i dont wanna be accused of editing after your response :lol

[Chris]

self explanatory tbh, but i'll go ahead and clarify anyway

using "business acumen" to "see through" a major scientific issue is pretty retarded

somebody with great business acumen might have thought the whole "cigarettes are addictive and can cause serious health issues" was a con as an attempt to tax/regulate... and therefore the science behind it must be a hoax

tbh there were a lot of people, including people in government, who were saying all the cigarette health studies were bullshit and just a hoax to regulate business. the CEO's of all the major tobacco companies testified before congress as recently as the 90's, claiming that nicotine wasn't addictive, when they damn well knew it was.

because business acumen

I was referring more to the Paris Climate Accord, but yeah climate change is a rather vague term that can be interpreted in different ways to coerce a variety of policies and regulations. Do I agree the climate is changing? Yes, the climate has been changing for a long time and will continue to do so for even longer. This is called logic, and it doesn't take a degree in Science or whatever other field you want to utilize to defend your stance. Do I think people like you are in a hurry to pay a Carbon Tax and force it on everyone else to feel good about themselves? Yeah.

[DarrinS]

cool.

al gore flies on private jets.

not sure what that means about the validity of the science though


People who believe it’s a crisis don’t behave like it’s a crisis. That was one takeaway from the study.

[spurraider21]

I was referring more to the Paris Climate Accord, but yeah climate change is a rather vague term that can be interpreted in different ways to coerce a variety of policies and regulations.
i think when people typically talk about "climate change" they are talking about anthropogenic climate change. so no, i don't really think its vague unless you are being purposely obtuse


Do I agree the climate is changing? Yes, the climate has been changing for a long time and will continue to do so for even longer. This is called logic, and it doesn't take a degree in Science or whatever other field you want to utilize to defend your stance.
just because the climate has changed without human influence in the past doesn't mean humans can never influence it. people die of natural causes all the time. doesn't mean nobody ever gets murdered.

every climate scientist, every alarmist... heck even nutjobs like al gore all know "the climate has always changed" so it really boggles my mind when people bring that up in an argument :lol

the climate has always changed due to various phenomena... fluctuation of cosmic rays, the solar/sunspot cycle, the earth's tilt on its axis, the gradual warming of the sun over time (separate from its sunspot cycles), and the content of the atmosphere. i'm probably missing a bunch

when humans are heavily influencing one of those sources... it follows that the climate can be affected. the idea that pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere would lead to warming has been around since the 1800's (i pointed these out to you last time... when you made that silly claim about the supposed "shift from global warming to climate change"


Do I think people like you are in a hurry to pay a Carbon Tax and force it on everyone else to feel good about themselves? Yeah.
i dont know that a carbon tax is really the best way to address the issue. i think it makes sense to subsidize renewable energy and put a lot of funding towards researching nuclear and solar would make sense. increase the efficiency of those sources to the point where fossil fuels are no longer economically viable


People who believe it’s a crisis don’t behave like it’s a crisis. That was one takeaway from the study.
flawed behavior in the populace doesn't have any bearing on the validity and merits of the science behind their opinions

but you already knew that, which is why you "just put this here" instead of weighing in on it at all

[boutons_deux]

"climate change" is a misleading, dishonest phrasing by BigCargon's whored phrasemakers, sounding innocuous, and self-evident, "of course"

it's "global warming", specifically AGW, "anthropogenic global warming" in the "anthropocene epoch".

[Chris]

i think when people typically talk about "climate change" they are talking about anthropogenic climate change. so no, i don't really think its vague unless you are being purposely obtuse

I'm never purposefully obtuse. It's a major pet peeve.



just because the climate has changed without human influence in the past doesn't mean humans can never influence it. people die of natural causes all the time. doesn't mean nobody ever gets murdered.

every climate scientist, every alarmist... heck even nutjobs like al gore all know "the climate has always changed" so it really boggles my mind when people bring that up in an argument :lol

the climate has always changed due to various phenomena... fluctuation of cosmic rays, the solar/sunspot cycle, the earth's tilt on its axis, the gradual warming of the sun over time (separate from its sunspot cycles), and the content of the atmosphere. i'm probably missing a bunch

when humans are heavily influencing one of those sources... it follows that the climate can be affected. the idea that pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere would lead to warming has been around since the 1800's (i pointed these out to you last time... when you made that silly claim about the supposed "shift from global warming to climate change"

I think the main argument is that humans are incapable of heavily influencing any of those sources.



i dont know that a carbon tax is really the best way to address the issue. i think it makes sense to subsidize renewable energy and put a lot of funding towards researching nuclear and solar would make sense. increase the efficiency of those sources to the point where fossil fuels are no longer economically viable

I think most people are in favor of this.

[spurraider21]

I'm never purposefully obtuse. It's a major pet peeve.
but i think you know very well what people are referring to when we talk about "climate change"... maybe i'm wrong


I think the main argument is that humans are incapable of heavily influencing any of those sources.
that's not much of an argument when we've already seen how much humans can influence the content of the atmosphere... particularly CO2


I think most people are in favor of this.
:tu

[boutons_deux]

The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist?detail=emaildkre

[Chris]

999809822458630144

[spurraider21]

999809822458630144
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

their source as your own link put it, is page 4 of this linked attachment

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20180118/NOAA-NASA_Global_Analysis-2017.pdf

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

please look at page 4

[Chris]

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

their source as your own link put it, is page 4 of this linked attachment

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20180118/NOAA-NASA_Global_Analysis-2017.pdf

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

please look at page 4

Looks like an "El Nino" anomaly. Does this take away from the fact that the Earth's temperature has dropped since Trump was elected?

[spurraider21]

Looks like an "El Nino" anomaly. Does this take away from the fact that the Earth's temperature has dropped since Trump was elected?
El Nino causes higher temperatures. La Nina causes lower temperatures.

that's why looking at the same graph on page 4, you can tell that 1998 had a particularly strong el nino event. you can guess what 2017-2018 have been. page 6 of that same attachment walks you through the cycles.

and no, of course it doesn't change that temperatures are were lower in 2017 than 2016. but that has nothing to do with "climate change alarmism." it's an expected outcome when you have la nina following an el nino year :lol. and despite being affected by la nina, 2017 was still one of the 3 warmest years on record

[boutons_deux]

Heartland Institute Compares Climate Science Believers And Reporters To Mass ‘Murderers And Madmen’

https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/0C7qrF6U-OXqxvfu_.jpg?w=1280&ssl=1

The Chicago-based anti-science think tank

is comparing all those who accept climate science — and the journalists who report on it accurately — to Charles Manson, the Unabomber, and Osama Bin Laden.

This far-beyond-the-pale ad campaign to promote their Chicago conference later this month is a moment of truth for both the think tank and the broader community of disinformers and their enablers.

GM ended their financial support of Heartland earlier this month, as has AT&T (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/04/433376/att-touts-green-honors-bankrolls-climate-deniers/), but

why are State Farm and Microsoft (http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-attacks-forecast-facts-denies-its-climate-change-denial) still supporting it?

Many other public corporations (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/17/428111/exposed-the-19-public-corporations-funding-the-climate-denier-think-tank-heartland-institute/) have donated money or provided resources to Heartland,
including Eli Lilly & Co., GlaxoSmithKline, Nucor, Pfizer, and Time Warner Cable.

Will they cut ties or implicitly endorse these extreme ads?

Heartland ended their gruesome failure today at 5 pm, but in a release (http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/), refused to admit it was a mistake or apologize. Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast tried to call this an “experiment” even though a series of billboards were planned (see below) and stated,

“We do not apologize for running the ad.”

This is a collective act by the Institute expressing its core worldview. A sustained billboard campaign would have to be signed off at the highest levels. Heartland displays the above image on its main website, proudly announcing its campaign and linking to its robust defense of “Our Billboards (http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/)” on its conference website.


Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute point out that some of the world’s most notorious criminals say they “still believe in global warming” — and ask viewers if they do, too…




The billboard series features Ted Kaczynski, the infamous Unabomber;

Charles Manson, a mass murderer;

and Fidel Castro, a tyrant.

Other global warming alarmists who may appear on future billboards include

Osama bin Laden and

James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).




These rogues and villains were chosen because they made public statements about how man-made global warming is a crisis and how mankind must take immediate and drastic actions to stop it.


Why did Heartland choose to feature these people on its billboards?

Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the “mainstream” media, and liberal politicians say about global warming….


The point is that believing in global warming is not “mainstream,” smart, or sophisticated.

In fact, it is just the opposite of those things. Still believing in man-made global warming — after all the scientific discoveries and revelations that point against this theory — is more than a little nutty. In fact, some really crazy people use it to justify immoral and frightening behavior.




https://thinkprogress.org/heartland-institute-compares-climate-science-believers-and-reporters-to-mass-murderers-and-madmen-65bb91ce3e39/

[DarrinS]

2012 news

[pgardn]

2012 news

So have any new findings solidified your current stance?

Links and discussion.

Thanks.

[boutons_deux]

West Antarctic ice melt poses unique threat to U.S.

News of Antarctica's accelerating ice melt (https://www.axios.com/antarctica-is-melting-faster-raising-sea-levels-32597e76-ca5e-47a8-8d48-4ce3009811ad.html) garnered worldwide headlines yesterday,

as scientists revealed that 3 trillion tons of ice has been lost to the sea since 1992 —

mostly from the thawing West Antarctic Ice Sheet and Antarctic Peninsula.
Why it matters:

The location of the ice melt is important for determining the future of coastal communities, according to climate scientists.

And, due to West Antarctica melting, it turns out that the U.S. coastline will be hit extra hard, paying a sea level rise tax of about 25%.

https://www.axios.com/losing-ice-from-west-antarctica-threatens-us-coast-e2beb1aa-d68a-4c50-acf1-e716e66d5403.html

[boutons_deux]

Three Climatic Monsters with Asteroid Impact (https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/13/three-climatic-monsters-with-asteroid-impact-part-2/)

CO2 with consequent global warming, when excessive, literally kills the oceans. As it happens, the oceans absorb 30-40% of CO2 and 80-90% of planetary heat

a new carbon sink theory claims the oceans have maxed-out, thus unable to absorb additional CO2 after taking up approximately 130B tons of CO2 over the past century (all-time approximately 38,000 gigatons of CO2, which is 16xs terrestrial CO2).

it is believed the oceans could reverse course and start emitting CO2, a “reverse sink,” at some juncture. The implications are daunting,

because of excessive CO2, more acidic, thus imperiling the life cycle of pteropods, tiny pea-like free-swimming snails at the base of the food chain that multiply by the billions, maybe trillions, serving as a source of sustenance for everything from krill to large whales.

a recent long-term study shows plankton production down 40% over the past 50 years. This is one more endangered resource of planetary oxygen, too much heat.

global warming slows down the thermohaline, ocean conveyor belt, which is now at its slowest in 1,600 years. The thermohaline is the deep-water circulation pattern around the world that forms the structure of ocean currents and ocean health.

global warming is killing off underwater kelp forests, key to survival for many species. Along the northern California coast for hundreds of miles bull kelp forests died. Australia now lists its giant kelp forests as an “endangered ecological zone”

Methane clathrates in the Arctic pose extraordinary risks to all humanity, especially in the shallow waters, depth 50m, of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, A joint U.S./Russian research effort out of the University of Alaska/Fairbanks has discovered ever-increasing zones of methane bubbling to surface, in some cases up to a mile in diameter.

“Can civilization withstand a 50-gigaton CH4 burp?” His answer: “No, I don’t think it can.”

The Colorado River Basin ecosystem –CRB- may be the prototype of collapsing ecosystems as a result of the human footprint.

(1) excessive GHGs warm the planet and alter hydrology systems such that the Rocky Mountains, the source of the river, receive less moisture in the form of snow, and

(2) human consumption, as well as water usage mismanagement, drains the system dry.

Just ask Las Vegas as they installed a “third straw” to suck up the last remaining drops at Lake Mead. “The risks of Lake Mead dropping to catastrophically low levels have ramped up dramatically,

the Southwest is experiencing its worst drought in 1,200 years.

the Bureau says 2018 Rocky Mountain runoff will be down 40% in the midst of a 19-year penetrating drought. Ipso facto, there is a

high probability of the “first-ever water shortage in the Colorado River Basin- ecosystem” in the near future,

The entire Middle East Mediterranean coastline is drying up faster than anywhere else on the planet. Thus, spawning eco migrants by the tens of thousands.

Monster #3 concerning ecosystems collapsing is also all about

loss of insect abundance as insects are primary to creation and support of soil, new soil, aerate soil, and pollinate crops, ecosystems that support all life.

The way it works is as follows: Insects do fine without humans but humans cannot exist without insects.

recent readings have shown a drop of up to 80% in flying insect abundance, extinction-type numbers.

The Stanford University Global Index for invertebrates is down 40% over the past 40 years.

it appears that humans are poisoning the planet. According to Julian Cribb, author of Surviving the 21st Century:

“Ours is a poisoned planet – This explosion in chemicals happened so rapidly people are unaware.”

Each year an avalanche of toxic chemicals, amounting to 250B tons, drips over the earth, which over time, will sanitize all life,

three monster climatic events are on a collision course as the forces of the Great Acceleration triggers one tipping point after another, no turning back. Already,

year-over-year, scientists are surprised by past projections, always too low in hindsight!

The Stern Report likely still serves as a reliable road map for what happens going forward, “assuming business as usual.” However, the report is dated as CO2 is increasing at a 50% faster rate today than in 2008, which likely means the report is way too conservative. (Here we go again with expectations too low with hindsight).

“The rate of carbon dioxide growth over the last decade is 100 to 200 times faster than what the Earth experienced during the transition from the last Ice Age. This is a real shock to the atmosphere.”

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/13/three-climatic-monsters-with-asteroid-impact-part-2/

[Chris]

1018650780344242179

[boutons_deux]

U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions expected to rise slightly in 2018, remain flat in 2019 (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34872#)

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34872
Repug kakistocratic EPA is hell bent to increase CO2 emissions, and pollutions every type, as dictated by BigCorp.

Pruitt's replacement is expected to be much worse than Pruitt

[boutons_deux]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/CO2_per_capita_per_country.png

CO2 emission per capita per year per country (2000 data)

USA "worst in class" of industrial countries of CO2 emitters / capita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_ capita#/media/File:CO2_per_capita_per_country.png

then add in vastly under-estimated methane emissions from oil/gas extraction

[Chris]

1020038957093072896

[spurraider21]

"Climate change is a fact of life, as is not contested by Defendants. But the serious problems caused thereby are not for the judiciary to ameliorate. Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government."

-John F. Keenan, U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of New York

lol

[RandomGuy]

10-10-2010 beginning of thread, CO2 concentration in atmosphere: 386ppm

Current CO2 concentration 410ppm

[RandomGuy]

1018650780344242179

"our data is not comparable to official national CO2 data".

Good data on burning fuels, but misses other factors, as well as overall context of energy intensity of economic outputs.

US has been steadily using less and less coal, the most intensive form of fuel.

A trend that Trump wants to reverse. Because he is an idiot.

[RandomGuy]

Looks like an "El Nino" anomaly. Does this take away from the fact that the Earth's temperature has dropped since Trump was elected?

That is one of the dumbest things I have seen you say, and you say a lot of dumb, lying, debunked things.

[RandomGuy]

2012 news

CO2 concentration 1970: 325 ppm

CO2 concentration on my join day here, 2005: Approx 380 ppm

CO2 at thread start, 2010, -- 388

CO2 now --410
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt


June Temperature
5th Warmest June since 1880: 2018

Coolest June since 1880: 1893


The world is most definitely getting hotter.

CO2 concentrations are rising at the fastest rate we have ever recorded.

The scientists who study this are pretty clear that there is a causal connection, and we are responsible.

I told you almost a decade ago, that the data will just get clearer and clearer. That is exactly what has happened.

Every single one of your trolling, failed talking points has been demolished.

and yet... you dig in your heels. That takes a special kind of stupid.

[RandomGuy]

Does this take away from the fact that the Earth's temperature has dropped since Trump was elected?

... and seriously, even Darrin would be embarrassed to make this point.

Just... wow.

[SpursforSix]

... and seriously, even Darrin would be embarrassed to make this point.

Just... wow.

Otis Nixon says hi

[RandomGuy]

Otis Nixon says hi

??

[101A]

Not a denier. A proponent. Plants LOVE 2000 ppm; we're at ~400. 20% there.

[spurraider21]

Not a denier. A proponent. Plants LOVE 2000 ppm; we're at ~400. 20% there.
Great!

no other aspect of anything is impacted by temperature/co2 except vegetation and fauna

[boutons_deux]

the biggest, thickest chunk of Arctic ice just broke apart, never seen that.

[RandomGuy]

Not a denier. A proponent. Plants LOVE 2000 ppm; we're at ~400. 20% there.

Ah. Well, I'm sure we will get to see if humans will survive that. Most wouldn't.

[boutons_deux]

Unexpected Future Boost of Methane Possible from Arctic Permafrost

Arctic permafrost’s expected gradual thawing and the associated release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere may actually be sped up by instances of a relatively little known process called abrupt thawing.

Abrupt thawing takes place under a certain type of Arctic lake, known as a thermokarst lake that forms as permafrost thaws.

The impact on the climate may mean

an influx of permafrost-derived methane into the atmosphere in the mid-21st century, which is not currently accounted for in climate projections.
The Arctic landscape stores one of the largest natural reservoirs of organic carbon in the world in its frozen soils.

But once thawed, soil microbes in the permafrost can turn that carbon into the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, which then enter into the atmosphere and contribute to climate warming.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost

[Winehole23]

new IPCC report:

headline statements: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
summary for policymakers: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
table of contents, chapter 1 http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter1.pdf

[Winehole23]

two Americans win Nobel Prize for economics related to climate change:


Americans William Nordhaus and Paul Romer, pioneers in adapting the western economic growth model to focus on environmental issues and sharing the benefits of technology, won the 2018 Nobel Economics Prize on Monday.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nobel-prize-economics/americans-nordhaus-romer-win-nobel-economics-prize-idUSKCN1MI0UN

[RandomGuy]

999809822458630144

"according to one analysis" :lmao


Pure pseudoscience. Thank your proving out the OP.

[RandomGuy]

2012 news

A1.2. Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}

A1.3. Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950. {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}

A.2. Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C (medium confidence) {1.2, 3.3, Figure 1.5, Figure SPM.1}

[Winehole23]

IPCC infographic showing projected environmental/economic impacts at various levels of global mean temperature rise:

https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-one-point-five-degrees-two-degrees/

[Winehole23]

Lesley Stahl: Do you still think that climate change is a hoax?

President Donald Trump: I think something's happening. Something's changing and it'll change back again. I don't think it's a hoax, I think there's probably a difference. But I don't know that it's manmade. I will say this. I don't wanna give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't wanna lose millions and millions of jobs. I don't wanna be put at a disadvantage.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-interview-60-minutes-full-transcript-lesley-stahl-jamal-khashoggi-james-mattis-brett-kavanaugh-vladimir-putin-2018-10-14/

[spurraider21]

IPCC infographic showing projected environmental/economic impacts at various levels of global mean temperature rise:

https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-one-point-five-degrees-two-degrees/
thanks for posting :tu

[boutons_deux]

IPCC infographic showing projected environmental/economic impacts at various levels of global mean temperature rise:

https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-one-point-five-degrees-two-degrees/

the report was dumbed down to reach vanilla consensus. Actual disaster is much worse

[spurraider21]

the report was dumbed down to reach vanilla consensus. Actual disaster is much worse
shutup meg

[Winehole23]

the report was dumbed down to reach vanilla consensus. Actual disaster is much worseI'd say they threw caution to the wind on this one. The best case scenario is now 1.5 degree rise by 2100 with a 4 degree rise likely.

[boutons_deux]

tipping points, positive feedbacks all over the place, BigCarbon's shit is hitting all the fans

[boutons_deux]

I'd say they threw caution to the wind on this one. The best case scenario is now 1.5 degree rise by 2100 with a 4 degree rise likely.

Trash's own Exec says 4 degrees, but they don't care. BigCarbon makes govt policy for its own protection/enrichment.

[boutons_deux]

Mammals Will Still Be Recovering From Human Destruction Long After We’re Gone

A somber new study estimates that it could take several million years for mammal diversity to recover from humanity’s impact.

Humans have helped propel the extinction of more than 300 mammal species — equaling a staggering loss of 2.5 billion years’ worth of unique evolutionary history,

It could take many millions of years for mammals to evolve enough new species to recover from the destruction humans have caused,

“We are doing something that will last millions of years beyond us,”

it could take up to 5 to 7 million years for mammal diversity to be restored to the level it was before the arrival of modern humans — and that’s assuming people cease all poaching, pollution and habitat destruction in the next 50 years.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mammal-diversity-extinction-study_us_5bc59f68e4b055bc94796ecf?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=__TheMorningEmail__101718&utm_content=__TheMorningEmail__101718+CID_e57e5ed1 f39396b975d329608b1e8f44&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=HuffPost&ncid=newsltushpmgnews__TheMorningEmail__101718

What a fucked up species man is.

"some say" God gave man dominion over the earth, and man fucked it up. God is a lobbyist for BigCarbon

[Isitjustme?]

999809822458630144

Making the Whole Earth Great Again. Amazing.

[Winehole23]

muh beer


The team looked at the areas around the world that grow barley, which is turned into malt for beer, and projected what will occur under five different climate warming scenarios by 2100. Using models of both economic activity and climate change, the group made predictions about what will happen to barley production, as well as beer price and consumption.

During the most severe climate events (https://www.wired.com/story/an-equator-full-of-hurricanes-shows-a-preview-of-end-times/), the study predicts that global beer consumption would decline by 16 percent, an amount about equal to the total annual beer consumption of the United States in 2011. It also expects average beer prices to double. Each country would be affected differently. The price of a single pint of beer in Ireland, for example, will rise by $4.84, followed by $4.52 in Italy and $4.34 in Canada. American tipplers will see beer prices rise up to $1.94 under the extreme events, the study said, and barley farmers will export more to other nations.
https://www.wired.com/story/climate-change-might-double-the-cost-of-a-beer/

[boutons_deux]

muh beer

https://www.wired.com/story/climate-change-might-double-the-cost-of-a-beer/

same with chocolate and coffee

[Chris]

Making the Whole Earth Great Again. Amazing.

Trump

[Winehole23]

rapid glacier melt in Yukon:


“We’re seeing a 20% difference in area coverage of the glaciers in Kluane national park and reserve and the rest of the Unesco world heritage site [over a 60-year period],” Diane Wilson, a field unit superintendent at Parks Canada (https://www.theguardian.com/world/canada), told the CBC. “We’ve never seen that. It’s outside the scope of normal.”

In the St Elias range, researchers have found warming intensifies at higher altitudes – a phenomenon they are not quite able to explain.

“These types of events aren’t isolated to glacial events in the St Elias,” said Zac Robinson, the report’s co-author and professor at the University of Alberta. “We’re slated to lose 80% of the ice cover in the Rocky Mountains over the next 50 years.”



The rate of warming in the north is double that of the average global temperature increase, concluded the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in its annual Arctic Report Card, which called the warming “unprecedented”.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/30/canada-glaciers-yukon-shrinking

[boutons_deux]

Oceans have absorbed 60% more heat than estimated.

[Winehole23]

in b4

"oh well, we can't do anything about it now"

[spurraider21]

in b4

"oh well, we can't do anything about it now"
better yet, in before "i walked into two different office rooms with a thermometer in my hand..."

[boutons_deux]

in b4

"oh well, we can't do anything about it now"

maybe we could, just a tiny little maybe, but oligarchy's Capitalism dictates, and clearly has exclusive dictator power, no brake on its amassing of Capital.

so

yes, "we can't do anything about it now" (and you don't have ability, or suggestions to support you pollyanna, hopeful bullshit)

America, the planet, is fucked and unfuckable.

[Chris]

1065400254151954432

[Chris]

1066067657278070785

People gonna die ya'll

[koriwhat]

1066067657278070785

People gonna die ya'll

too bad her dumbass isn't dead already. she trying to kill NY and then the USA all by her dumbass self.

[Chris]

too bad her dumbass isn't dead already. she trying to kill NY and then the USA all by her dumbass self.

I'm seriously considering the possibility that she is a plant from the RNC.

[koriwhat]

I'm seriously considering the possibility that she is a plant from the RNC.

she could be. i thought she was the idiot but i guess her constituents are the real dipshits tbh.

[ElNono]

Deep state? Chris and his conspiracies :lol

[Chris]

1070897405967650817

[boutons_deux]

That was awkward — at world’s biggest climate conference, U.S. promotes fossil fuels

President Trump’s top White House adviser on energy and climate stood before the crowd of some 200 people on Monday and tried to burnish the image of coal, the fossil fuel that powered the industrial revolution

— and is now a major culprit behind the climate crisis world leaders are meeting here to address.

“We strongly believe that no country should have to sacrifice economic prosperity or energy security in pursuit of environmental sustainability,”

said Wells Griffith, Trump’s adviser.

Mocking laughter echoed through the conference room.

A woman yelled, “These false solutions are a joke!”

And dozens of people erupted into chants of protest.

The protest was a piece of theater, and so too was

the United States’ public embrace of coal and other dirty fuels at an event otherwise dedicated to saving the world from the catastrophic effects of climate change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/that-was-awkward--at-worlds-biggest-climate-conference-us-promotes-fossil-fuels/2018/12/10/aa8600c4-f8ae-11e8-8642-c9718a256cbd_story.html?utm_term=.bf6e4852cc55&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

Trash/oligarchy/Capital self-ridiculing before the planet.

[Winehole23]

the costs of doing nothing will be substantial, and they may not be as far away as people think:


By the middle of this century, climate change is likely to punch a hole through the busiest stretch of rail in North America. Parts of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor route, which carries 12 million people each year between Boston and Washington, face “continual inundation.” Flooding, rising seas, and storm surge threaten to erode the track bed and knock out the signals that direct train traffic. The poles that provide electricity for trains are at risk of collapse, even as power substations succumb to floodwaters. “If one of the segments of track shuts down, it will shut down this segment of the NEC,” warned members of Amtrak’s planning staff. “There is not an alternate route that can be used as a detour.”



That was the conclusion of a three-volume, multi-year climate study undertaken with first Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. and then Stantec Inc. Although the report was completed in April 2017, its conclusions were kept private until this November, when a partially redacted version was obtained by Bloomberg through a public records request. Titled “Amtrak NEC Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment,” the document outlines the severe threat facing one 10-mile section of the 457 miles of track, much of which runs perilously close to water.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-amtrak-sea-level/

[Chris]

Amtrak being subject to weather damage proves "climate change" is a threat? Ok.

[boutons_deux]

Ecocide as Creative Destruction (https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/21/ecocide-as-creative-destruction/)

since 1970 60% of the mammals, birds, fish and reptiles on the planet have been driven to extinction. To the extent that the WWF has it right,

climate change accounts for less than 10% of these losses

Habitat degradation and loss and animal exploitation (e.g. trawl-net fishing) explain most of this animal extinction.

Habitat loss is primarily due to deforestation to feed factory farm animals (http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0262e.pdf).

Over approximately the same time frame, 60% – 80% of insects have also been made extinct.

If the one-degree (https://climateanalytics.org/briefings/global-warming-reaches-1c-above-preindustrial-warmest-in-more-than-11000-years/) Celsius warming experienced to date explains the insect extinction,

where does that leave the IPCC’s (https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/)1.5 degree warming ‘budget?’

industrial agriculture— including deforestation, monoculture planting and the use of pesticides, explains the insect and animal extinctions quite well.

That oceanic dead zones ring industrial economies supports the interpretation that they are caused by agricultural runoff.

There is no plausible exit from the current predicament emanating from the established order. (aka unfuckable)

The status quo is untenable, not a haven.

The habitat loss and degradation that substantially explains the insect and animal mass extinctions ties directly to animal agriculture— land is being cleared for animal grazing and to grow feed crops for factory farms.

Factory farms are ‘efficient’ in the narrow sense of

favoring commodity animals by decimating populations of non-commodity animals.

This is done through monoculture planting of feed-crops to exclude / decimate non-feed crops.

This decimation is accomplished using pesticides and herbicides that eliminate ‘losses’ to non-feed plants and insects.

Annihilation is the point, not an accident.

commodity production, excludes consideration of broader environmental relationships.

Question:

if a group of people proposed killing 60% – 80% of the animals, insects and marine life on the planet

while emitting enough gases into the atmosphere to cook the planet,

should their stance as ‘centrists’ be taken seriously?

after they were told they accelerated the damage caused

The term ‘sociopaths’ seems more descriptively accurate.

most people want to do the right thing when it comes to the planet.

This illustrates the divide between political and economic democracy.

Economic concentration is used to crush political democracy.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/21/ecocide-as-creative-destruction/

[Winehole23]

Amtrak being subject to weather damage proves "climate change" is a threat? Ok.Rising ocean levels. The social costs will be substantial.

[RandomGuy]

Rising ocean levels. The social costs will be substantial.

We will not be looked on kindly by our children and their children.

Funny at how fossil fuel companies are all now on board with carbon taxes... if they can be shielded from liability lawsuits.

That right there says all you need to know about the truth.

Even the fossil fuel companies know the truth: The climate is changing, and it is our actions that are the primary driver.

They know they will lose in the courts where evidence matters, and are starting to hedge.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1080356596323049472

[RandomGuy]

Amtrak being subject to weather damage proves "climate change" is a threat? Ok.

Dude, your ability to comment on scientific topics ended when you started pushing fake moon landing and flat earth theories. GTFO.

[Chris]

Dude, your ability to comment on scientific topics ended when you started pushing fake moon landing and flat earth theories. GTFO.

^Lying faggot wants a safe space

[spurraider21]

^Lying faggot wants a safe space
yup. chris never commits to any theories. he'll hint the fuck out of them.

he'll talk about how anyone leaving the earth would be fried by the van allen belt, and talk about snowglobe earth theory, but he'll never commit to anything.

very rarely do we find people so unwilling to state their convictions

[Winehole23]

yup. chris never commits to any theories. he'll hint the fuck out of them.

he'll talk about how anyone leaving the earth would be fried by the van allen belt, and talk about snowglobe earth theory, but he'll never commit to anything.I call that having the cowardice of one's convictions.

[Winehole23]

it's a motif with edgier posters. sometimes accompanied by a pretense of curiosity or the solemnity of "hard questions."

[spurraider21]

some interesting signatures on this... particularly towards the bottom left

https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/nyt.jpg?w=1024&h=1836

[Chris]

What's your conspiracy theory here?

[spurraider21]

What's your conspiracy theory here?
i dont have one

[MannyIsGod]

So is Chris the new Darrin?

[Winehole23]

So is Chris the new Darrin?even worse. he lacks WC's charming qualities such as his general willingness to engage and his unintentional hilarity.

D is still kickin around, btw.