Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Did you even watch the video,I posted a link.

He like all of of your sources is a moron. See the truth;

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example. As he admits in his own words, Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever fits this mould perfectly:

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."

That quote comes from a presentation Giaever gave to the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates in 2012, for some unknown reason on the subject of climate change. As Giaever notes at the beginning of his talk, he has become more famous for his contrarian views on global warming than for his Nobel Prize, which have made him something of a darling to the climate contrarian movement and climate denial enablers.

In this post we will examine the claims made by Giaever in his talk, and show that his contrarian climate opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, as Giaever admits. Giaever personifies the classic stereotype of the physicist who thinks he understands all scientific fields of study:

C

artoon from xkcd which describes the behavior of Ivar Giaever to a 'T'

Accuracy of the Surface Temperature Record

In his talk, Giaever spent a lot of time criticizing Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC chairman) for winning the Nobel Peace Prize for - according to Giaever - 'making the global surface temperature record famous' (Figure 1).



Figure 1: Various global surface and lower troposphere temperature data sets.
Giaever proceeded to question the accuracy of the surface temperature record, ultimately asking:

"How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don't think that's possible."

Unfortunately this simply displays an ignorance regarding the surface temperature record, whose accuracy has been confirmed time and time again, and which is also consistent with lower troposphere temperature measurements, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Glenn Tramblyn has answered Giaever's question in great detail in his four part series Of Averages & Anomalies, and Kevin C also had an excellent and detailed post on recent temperature measurements in The GLOBAL global warming signal. The answers to these questions are out there for those who are willing to spend more than a few hours on Google searches, and it is not constructive to give presentations on subjects without first doing such basic research. We are again left wondering why Giaever was asked to give a presentation to Nobel Laureates on a subject on which he has no expertise and has not done even the most basic research.

The Significance of the Observed Global Warming

Giaever also disputed the significance of the measured 0.8°C average global surface warming over the past 130 years, comparing it to a human fever and the temperature at which he had to maintain tissue for cell growth during his own biophysical experiments, also showing the following slide:



Giaever does not seem to know how to put the observed 0.8°C global surface temperature change in proper context. It may sound small in comparison to the absolute global temperature in Kelvin, or in comparison to changes in human body temperatures, but it is a very large change in global surface temperature, especially over a period as brief as 130 years (Figure 2).



Figure 2: Eight records of local temperature variability on multi-centennial scales throughout the course of the Holocene, and an average of these (thick dark line) over the past 12,000 years, plotted with respect to the mid 20th century average temperature. The global average temperature in 2004 is also indicated. (Source)
In addition to this rapid surface warming, the global oceans have also been accumulating heat at an incredible rate - the equivalent of more than two Hiroshima "Little Boy" atomic bomb detonations per second, every second over a the past half century. Presumably a physicist of Giaever's stature would appreciate the magnitude of this global energy accumulation.

As a physicist, Giaever should also understand that seemingly small objects and quantities can have large effects, but instead he seems to rely on incorrect "common sense" perceptions which are based on ignorance of the subject at hand.
CO2 vs. Water Vapor

As another example of this behavior, Giaever proceeds to demonstrate that he also does not understand the role of the greenhouse effect in climate change.

"Water vapor is a much much stronger green[house] gas than the CO2. If you look out of the window you see the sky, you see the clouds, and you don't see the CO2."

Needless to say, the second sentence above represents a very bizarre argument. Giaever is either arguing that CO2 is a visible gas (it is not) and the fact that you can't see it means there is too little in the atmosphere to have a significant warming effect, or that only visible gases can warm the planet, or some other similarly misinformed assertion.

That clouds are visible to the human eye and CO2 isn't simply is not relevant to the greenhouse effect and global warming. It's also worth noting that like CO2, water vapor is not visible - clouds are condensed water droplets, not water vapor.
Additionally, water vapor does not drive climate change. There is a lot of it in the atmosphere, so it is the largest single contributor to the greenhouse effect. However, water vapor cannot initiate a warming event. Unlike external forcings such as CO2, which can be added to the atmosphere through various processes (like fossil fuel combustion), the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapor is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. As Lacis et al. (2010) showed, as summarized by NASA (emphasis added):

"Because carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing in the current climate atmosphere, atmospheric carbon dioxide therefore qualifies as the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth."

Climate Myth Whack-a-Mole


Giaever continues ticking off the most common climate myths, going from arguing that it may not even be warming, to claiming the warming is insignificant, to asserting the warming is caused by water vapor, and ultimately that the warming is indeed caused by human influences:

"Is it possible that all the paved roads and cut down forests are the cause of "global warming", not CO2? But nobody talks about that."

Climate scientists do of course investigate and discuss the effects of deforestation and urban influences. The 2007 IPCC report discusses the influences of deforestation on climate in great detail, for example here and here, and devotes a section to policies aimed at reducing deforestation here. The United Nations has also implemented the Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) to address the effects of deforestation on climate change. In short, by claiming that nobody has considered the effects of deforestation on climate, Giaever once again demonstrates that he simply has not done his homework.

The IPCC report also discusses the influences of urban heat islands and land use effects here and here, for example. Giaever then claims that one person has talked about these effects - US Secretary of Energy and fellow Nobel Laureate Steven Chu, who suggested paining roofs white to offset some warming, though he does not discuss Chu in a very flattering light.

"[Chu has] been bought by the global warming people, and he's now helping Obama trying to make green energy in the United States."

In the presentation in question, Chu described the potential effects of the white roof proposal as follows:

"Making roads and roofs a paler color could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years"

Chu discusses white roofs as a geoengineering possibility in response to greenhouse gas-caused climate change, as a way to offset a small portion of the global warming our fossil fuel combustion and associated carbon emissions are causing.

Failure to do Homework Earns a Failing Grade


At this point we're 9 minutes into Giaever's 32-minute presentation, and he begins comparing climate science to religion. Yet based on his arguments in those first 9 minutes, it's clear that Giaever has not done even the most basic climate research, so how can he possibly make such a radical determination?

While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows. He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101, and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion, brining life to the xkcd cartoon at the top of this post.
Memo to climate contrarians - expertise comes from actually researching a subject. There is a reason why scientists who have researched climate change in the most depth are also the most likely to be convinced that global warming is human-caused (Figure 3).



Figure 3: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change (green) and unconvinced by the evidence (red) with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

In his talk, Giaever complained that he had become famous for his climate contrarianism, which he claimed indicated that dissenting opinions on the subject are not welcome. On the contrary, Giaever has been criticized for repeating long-debunked climate myths which he could have easily learned about through a little bit of research - by perusing the Skeptical Science database, for example, where we have debunked all of his Googled climate misconceptions.

Instead, Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which he has not even done the most basic research. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized. Giaever finishes his talk by proclaiming

"Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely."

The problem is that Giaever has not done his homework, which is why he gets the wrong answer, and his presentation deserves a failing grade. Ironically, Giaever defines "pseudoscience" as only seeking evidence to confirm one's desired hypothesis, which is precisely how Giaever himself has behaved with respect to climate science.

Listening to Giaever's opinions on climate science is equivalent to giving your dentist a pamphlet on heart surgery and asking him to crack your chest open. While climate science has a basis in phyiscs (and many other scientific fields of study), it is an entirely different subject, whose basics Giaever could undoubtedly grasp if he were willing to put the time in to do his homework.
But individual scientists (even Nobel Laureates) suffer from cognitive biases like anyone else. That's why we don't rely on indvidual scientists or individual papers to draw conclusions about climate change. The only way to get an accurate picture is through the work of many scientists, peer reviewed and scrutinized over decades and tested against multiple lines of evidence. Giaever demonstrates how far cognitive bias - reinforced by a few hours of Googling - can lead anyone to the wrong conclusions, and also proves that no individual's opinion, regardless of his credentials, can replace the full body of climate science evidence.

Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever: Obama Is 'Dead Wrong' on Climate Change : snopes.com

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here ... Forbes Welcome › sites › 2013/05/26 › t...

Link doesn't work

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide ... Natural Health News and Scientific Discoveries - NaturalNews.com › 040448_solar_r...

Well to start off with a little back story about your source;

Characterized as a "conspiracy-minded alternative medicine website", Natural News has approximately 7 million unique visitors per month.[8] Founder Mike Adams has been accused of using sockpuppet accounts to fraudulently increase the vote count in his self-nomination for a Shorty Award. The journal Vaccine accused Adams of spreading "irresponsible health information" through Natural News.[9] He has also been accused of using "pseudoscience to sell his lies".[10]
Its founder, Michael Allen "Mike" Adams is an AIDS denialist, a 9/11 truther, a birther,[11] and has endorsed conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[12]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

You are not off to a good start there repeater666. So lets look at the body of the article for more clues that this is just more junk conspiracy nonsense.

The "study" cited in the article was done by an organization called Principia Scientific International. Here is more info on its CEO;

John O'Sullivan is leader of a group of activists who deny that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has any global warming affect. In the beginning of 2010, they published a book Slaying the Sky Dragon," in which they claim increased carbon dioxide emission is actually good for us.

O'Sullivan has been promoting this book and himself, his other writings, his fascade company called Principia Scientific International, and soliciting public donations through false professional and academic credentials. He is falsely claiming to be a lawyer who has "successfully litigated for more than 13 years in New York and Federal 2nd District courts," a member of the American Bar Association, a legal consultant employed by the British Columbia law firm Pearlman Lindholm, and a science journalist with more than 150 major articles published worldwide including in National Review and Forbes magazines. None of those claims are true.

The following links to documents highlight some of the more serious falsehoods and shams O'Sullivan has in his plan to promote his new career as science writer and legal analyst. In October, John O'Sullivan joined the New York County Lawyer's Association (NYCLA) as a Provisional Member by fraudulently sending in false information. Although he claims in his online resumes and bios that he's been practicing law for over a decade and earned a law degree from the University of Surrey in 1982, he claimed he earned his law degree in January 2010 from "University of Surrey - Hill University."

The Bogus Law and Journalism Credentials of John O'Sullivan

So you expect me to buy the absurd claim that carbon emissions are actually cooling the earth and then you are going to quote from a website run by a huckster who puts up an article quoting a "study" from an organization run by another fraudster who is falsely claiming to be a lawyer and has a fake degree.

Are you a complete moron? Oh wait yes you are.

Since you don't seem to know how to use links I copied the article for you.

For climate-change alarmists, the heat is on… their foreheads. Their desperation is starting to bead up and roll into their collars like flop sweat. California Gov. Jerry Brown’s absurd contention that LAX Airport is going to be turned into a bathtub because of climate change is the latest example of how know-nothings in the media, entertainment and politics are reaching for ever more questionable arguments as they continue to fail to stoke fears in an American public that, contrary to their hateful claims, largely believes in global warming but isn’t particularly worried about it. (Even among Democrats, more Americans rate drug use than climate change a serious political issue).

Brown said that due to changes in glacier mass (breathlessly hyped as “collapse” by the media), in 200 years “the Los Angeles airport’s going to be underwater.”

No, it isn’t. A projected four-foot rise in sea levels won’t much affect the airport, which sits 120 feet above sea level. A spokesman for Brown quietly admitted “the governor misspoke.” Cancel that budget item for the “billions of dollars” Brown imagined would be necessary to move the airport. (Or, maybe, move it anyway, for the same reason the state hopes to spend $68 billion on high-speed rail: It may be useless, but construction jobs will surely be created.)

Photo Ng Swan Ti oxfaminternational.wordpress.com
Photo Ng Swan Ti oxfaminternational.wordpress.com (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Brown’s effort is typical of the political-informational complex’s new tactics. In the face of the inconvenient truths that hurricane activity has been on the decline and there was a frustratingly dismal season of storms for alarmists last year, that record cold temperatures last winter can hardly be blamed on global warming , that the slowing rate of increase in global temperatures is on the verge of falling beneath even the lowest projections of virtually all climate-change models, the alarmists are trying to keep global warming hysteria hot by throwing pocketbook issues into the furnace. That’s why we’re seeing a major uptick in global bathos, via headlines like “Climate Change May Be Killing Our Fancy Coffee.” Oh well, Maxwell House struck everybody as good enough for 80 years. The progressives at ThinkProgress warn of a possible guacapocalypse at Chipotle due to climate change. Is “Your Breakfast Under Assault from Climate Change“? Of course it is, you denier. Frosted Flakes prices could go up 20 percent….by 2030. Stockpile now! Or maybe give up Frosted Flakes and invest that money in future beachfront property in Orlando, because 2030 is also the year the alarmists tell us Miami is going underwater. (Really? From a sea-level rise of 3 mm per year? That adds up to 1.9 inches by 2030.) Oh, and if you think mankind can somehow muddle through climate change, you’re a Nazi.

Even alarmist publications like The New York Times are forced sheepishly to correct other alarmists (The Times’ environmental blogger wrote, “Some headlines are completely overwrought — as with this NBC offering: ‘West Antarctic Ice Sheet’s Collapse Triggers Sea Level Warning.’ This kind of coverage could be interpreted to mean there’s an imminent crisis”). No wonder a Yale study discovered that the most scientifically-literate Americans are less frightened of climate change than their low-information neighbors.

Political and media figures in the alarmist camp hope to bully the stubborn realists into silence. John Kerry is the latest to rely on a spurious claim that, as he put it in his Boston College commencement speech this week, “ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.” An equally obtuse figure who relies on the audience to mistake him for a well-informed person, HBO comic John Oliver, whose Cambridge degree and British accent equal erudition to low-information viewers, last week paraded 97 extras and actors onstage for a global warming “debate” with three actors pretending to be global-warming skeptics, for the purpose of showing the jabbering 97 shouting down the cringing three. He said this was a better illustration than the usual one-on-one media debate because in “a survey of thousands of scientific papers, uh, that took a position on climate change, 97 percent endorsed the position that humans are causing global warming.”

Recommended by Forbes
JPMorgan ChaseVoice: How $48MM Is Empowering Neighborhoods Around The U.S.

President Obama's Global Warming Calculated Deception Means Democrats Have Abandoned...
IBMVoice: Once New York Was The Center Of Technical Innovation

Sorry, Jerry Brown, Global Warming Is Reducing Wildfires
Global Warming Scientists Scrap Real Science, Bow Before President Obama I...
Record Antarctic Ice Extent Throws Cold Water On Global Warming Scare
MOST POPULAR Photos: Hollywood's Most Overpaid Actors 2015
TRENDING ON FACEBOOK A Curious Twist of Fate for Libya's Rogue General
MOST POPULAR Photos: College Football's Most Valuable Teams 2015

Uh. That uh, as Oliver may or may not be aware, indicates 97 percent of 33 percent — the latter being the proportion of scientific papers that declared humans were causing climate change. Two-thirds offered no opinion on the matter. In other words, Oliver’s the-crowd-is-with-me statement (and Kerry’s even more ill-informed mangling of it) equated to 32 percent of the crowd he was talking about.

Moreover, even that laughable 97 percent figure was arrived at via highly tendentious means some have described as “doctoring.” Yet even 100 percent metaphysical certainty on the statement “humans are causing some amount of global warming” doesn’t actually tell us what U.S. energy policy should be. Sorry, alarmists, but you aren’t going to drown out the realists any more than the Atlantic Ocean is going to drown Miami.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Easy for you to make that comment, but as usual I see you have posted nothing to back up your assertion.

Its not an assertion you pinheaded nitwit. The article you posted is garbage and completely devoid of any facts. It is some right wing commentary piece by some moronic radio personality.

Find me one legitimate climate scientist in the world who claims that global warming is not happening. Not someone who is bought off by big oil. You tried to post a list before and I utterly trounced it debunking EVERY name on your list. I have debunked EVERY article you have ever posted in this thread.

Yet you still come back for more humiliation.

No humiliation here, as you still have posted nothing to refute the article, you never do you just post what your pea brain dreams is the truth, but only if it fits your libtard agenda.

You are undoubtedly one of the most stupid people I have ever encountered. The article is baseless and has no evidence at all. NASA never said anything like that and you can not find one credible source that it did. Just mumbo jumbo from a right wing propaganda website. I have no agenda be it liberal or otherwise I merely refuse turn a blind eye to absolutely convincing science with a mountain of evidence to back it up.

Several people on this forum have noted your clear lack of intelligence yet you still insist in yammering on.

Several times you posted articles to this thread and I have debunked everyone of them with facts complete with links. Go back and read through the thread. Your senile brain has a short memory.

Several people, meaning your crew of back slapping libtards who try to insult anyone in disagreement with them, and I you think I would take their comments seriously, well maybe not.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Several people, meaning your crew of back slapping libtards who try to insult anyone in disagreement with them

Post real data. You can not. I have posted real science. It matters not to you because you are a creationist and a denier of reality.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Sorry, Jerry Brown, Global Warming Is Reducing Wildfires

This is a criminal claim and the buffoon should face federal charges.

Yes snubders you do post some scientific data it is the interpretation of this data that seems to be in question. It seems to me there needs to be some common sense put into the interpretation of all this scientific data, I don't see that as a common denominator amongst most of you libtard alarmist.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

there needs to be some common sense put into the interpretation of all this scientific data

What common sense principles would you apply to the interpretation of the data?

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

there needs to be some common sense put into the interpretation of all this scientific data

What common sense principles would you apply to the interpretation of the data?

Maybe making sense of what the real consequences the data is showing us,and what the remedies of those consequences should be,like living somewhere between pre-industrial revolution conditions and somewhere in a future we have yet to reach.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

there needs to be some common sense put into the interpretation of all this scientific data

What common sense principles would you apply to the interpretation of the data?

Maybe making sense of what the real consequences the data is showing us,and what the remedies of those consequences should be,like living somewhere between pre-industrial revolution conditions and somewhere in a future we have yet to reach.

What does "making sense of what the real consequeces of the data" mean?
We are living the consequences of the data.
What common sense application would you apply to the data.

Originally Posted by MrG

I don't like the bullshit either, but I think most people get the ironic note in the question posed in the thread's title.
And if there are doubts about climate change, then what better place to post them than in a single thread where positions can be exchanged in the same place with climate change realists.

Works for me.

Maybe you don't understand the meaning of "irrelevant".

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Since you don't seem to know how to use links I copied the article for you.

The article was an opinion piece written by a fellow named Peter Ferrara. He is not a scientist but a lawyer. He is employed by you guessed it the Heritage foundation which is funded by none other than the Koch brothers. Once again to remind people that foundation maintains that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer.

This is another garbage article that is put out buy a propaganda machine with a deliberate goal of confusing morons like you. I have posted about this before numerous times in fact regarding the "experts" that you continue to quote most whom are paid by this organization to push garbage.

This article that I already posted explain why global cooling is bogus and goes against basic laws of physics. The video rams the point home.

https://teakdoor.com/speakers-corner/...ml#post3167888 (Any doubts about Climate Change?)

Originally Posted by MrG

What common sense principles would you apply to the interpretation of the data?

He has no fcuking clue because he has not a shred of it.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

there needs to be some common sense put into the interpretation of all this scientific data

What common sense principles would you apply to the interpretation of the data?

Maybe making sense of what the real consequences the data is showing us,and what the remedies of those consequences should be,like living somewhere between pre-industrial revolution conditions and somewhere in a future we have yet to reach.

What does "making sense of what the real consequeces of the data" mean?
We are living the consequences of the data.
What common sense application would you apply to the data.

The opposite of alarmist, you say we are living the consequences now,yet in the last 130 years we have only seen 0.8 K of warming , of which how much can be attributed to mankind is still somewhat questionable. Forcing the coal industry out of business at this time seems unreasonable, buying and selling carbon credits amounts to nothing more than income redistribution, doesn't it make more sense in putting that money into the development of alternative energy that will actually work. Making requirements of industry that is going to put many people out of work makes know sense to me. Let's proceed with a reasonable implementations that will allow those that are performing jobs that will eventionally be lost to transition into the jobs the new forms of energy will provide. The transportation industry is another one, most of the push in transportation is fuel emissions what incentives to develope a new source of fuels that make sense, seems to me incentives are more attracting than mandates. It seems as though the liberal movement looks at these industries as a monster in the room, sure they need to change, but does regulating out of America make sense.
In summation I don't believe we are at the point yet where we need to be putting entire industries out of work, but yes I do believe it is time to begin changes that make sense.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Since you don't seem to know how to use links I copied the article for you.

The article was an opinion piece written by a fellow named Peter Ferrara. He is not a scientist but a lawyer. He is employed by you guessed it the Heritage foundation which is funded by none other than the Koch brothers. Once again to remind people that foundation maintains that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer.

This is another garbage article that is put out buy a propaganda machine with a deliberate goal of confusing morons like you. I have posted about this before numerous times in fact regarding the "experts" that you continue to quote most whom are paid by this organization to push garbage.

This article that I already posted explain why global cooling is bogus and goes against basic laws of physics. The video rams the point home.

https://teakdoor.com/speakers-corner/...ml#post3167888 (Any doubts about Climate Change?)

Originally Posted by MrG

What common sense principles would you apply to the interpretation of the data?

He has no fcuking clue because he has not a shred of it.

There you go again demeaning someone rather than posting sensible contributions, great job Snubby. I have heard it said those who use fowl language do so out of no understanding of there language, you seem to be living proof of that.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

posting sensible contributions

Maybe you should start reading my posts.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I have heard it said those who use fowl language do so out of no understanding of there language

You posting about an understanding language just gave me the best laugh of the night. I needed that. Merry Christmas to you and a happy birthday to me. Yes it really is my birthday. I will leave you with this present;

People who curse a lot have better vocabularies than those who don't, study finds - ScienceAlert

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

posting sensible contributions

Maybe you should start reading my posts.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I have heard it said those who use fowl language do so out of no understanding of there language

You posting about an understanding language just gave me the best laugh of the night. I needed that. Merry Christmas to you and a happy birthday to me. Yes it really is my birthday. I will leave you with this present;

People who curse a lot have better vocabularies than those who don't, study finds - ScienceAlert

Thank you and happy birthday.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Sorry, Jerry Brown, Global Warming Is Reducing Wildfires

This is a criminal claim and the buffoon should face federal charges.

So you really are looking for a fascist govn. maybe you could tell us on what federal charges he should be charged with.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

In summation I don't believe we are at the point yet where we need to be putting entire industries out of work, but yes I do believe it is time to begin changes that make sense.

Well, talk about covering your ass when the grandkids ask "What did you do to help save the earth for us?"
Are you running for office or something?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I have heard it said those who use fowl language do so out of no understanding of there language, you seem to be living proof of that.

That's a fucking fettid pile of steaming bullshit if I ever heard one.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Merry Christmas to you and a happy birthday to me. Yes it really is my birthday. I will leave you with this present;

Merry Christmas and Happy Birthday, Snub. Last night I was at a birthday party for a friend who was born on Christmas Eve.

Originally Posted by slackula

40 years ago

rewriting history again ?
40 years ago your ilk was worrying about global cooling .....

Originally Posted by slackula

oil-shock of the early 70s

That exactly the when nuclear power stations should have taken over, but didn't because you liberals didn't like that either ..

Originally Posted by Neo

Exxon Isn’t the Only Oil Company That Knew About Climate Change in the 70

everyone knew about it, climate change has been happening for ever ..

Originally Posted by MrG

the grandkids ask "What did you do to help save the earth for us?"

the liberals are the one with the biggest carbon footprints
Air miles ? they are always flying off for a weekend somewhere.
then staying in a massive hotels rooms
or moving from a country where they have the heating on 12 weeks a year to one where they have the Air con on 24 /7 / 365 ...
you have to laugh- no wonder you never hear them talk about peoples carbon footprints anymore.
or the footprint of building wind power etc .
best way to help the earth is to keep immigrants out of the west, they breed like rabbits , and less people is what the earth needs not less co2 plant food.

want to help the next generation ?
release plenty of co2 , so the plants can flourish




''Granny why the fuck didn't you do more to cause global warming ?''

Originally Posted by slackula

Originally Posted by RPETER65

doesn't it make more sense in putting that money into the development of alternative energy that will actually work. Making requirements of industry that is going to put many people out of work makes know sense to me. Let's proceed with a reasonable implementations that will allow those that are performing jobs that will eventionally be lost to transition into the jobs the new forms of energy will provide. The transportation industry is another one, most of the push in transportation is fuel emissions what incentives to develope a new source of fuels that make sense, seems to me incentives are more attracting than mandates.

You write that and then go on to denigrate liberals in your usual style.

The point you are missing is that what you wrote is exactly what liberals were advocating starting in earnest about 40 years ago but it's the right-wing and people such as yourself that have denied, obfuscated and tried to stifle all of that with the result that it's now exponentially harder to do.

A more gradual transition and incentives to the private sector to fund research starting say, after the oil-shock of the early 70s would be paying dividends now but due to the way Conservatives have turned pollution into a political argument and demonised anybody that didn't kow-tow to big oil we are now stuck dealing with a legacy of intransigence and greed and general bullshit.

Originally Posted by MrG

Well, talk about covering your ass when the grandkids ask "What did you do to help save the earth for us?"

He'll say he read Leviticus and prayed that gay marriage didn't cause a plague of frogs to eat all the grain stored in Carson's Egyptian silos or something like that.

First I have never denied global warming. I have been saying for years we need new energy sources, when people were calling nuclear energy a monster I was saying it is one of the most viable sources to replace oil and coal, people are talking about tearing down dams, ridiculous. You seem to think all democrats love the ways of big business, not so we just don't like giving the federal government more power.You say we are against the middle class, we are the middle class.
You continually mock people who believe in God, guess what you non believers are only 14% of the world population.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

First I have never denied global warming.

I'm going to call that bullshit. Technically maybe not a direct denial, but you clearly deny a man-made connection. The same thing, it seems to me, since the phenomenon of Global Warming refers to the ongoing trend of warming as a result of human influence, not just part of a naturally occuring cycle of climate warming and cooling.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

when people were calling nuclear energy a monster I was saying it is one of the most viable sources to replace oil and coal,

Maybe once upon a time, but now it is seen as one of a number of energy sources, and not really the best. Nuclear works great until you run into the problem of storage and waste, deadly stuff that we don't have a place or means to store for the tens of thousands of years it takes to become non-toxic.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

people are talking about tearing down dams, ridiculous.

Not all dams are hydro electric dams. Not all dams do good things to the environment, and some outlive their usefullness. What dams are being torn down and why. A discussion worth having, IMHO.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You say we are against the middle class,

I believe that, as you are an avowed conservative in these times, then you support policies that work against the prosperity--the survival--of the middle class. This is not a "liberal" bit of propoganda. Prominent business and financial people are beginnig to sound an alarm bell about the declining middle class. But for others there's just too much money to be made by huckstering some new variation of the trickle down theory.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

we are the middle class.

And since Reagan you have been trained to vote against your own interests. Former Southern Democrats who turned against the Party largely because of Civil Rights legislation and Anti-Viet Nam protests blossomed as Reagan Republicans, and joined forces with the economic right wingers. Together they formed a big orange ball of Metamucil and swept up most of the Evangelicals. And then they spawned.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You continually mock people who believe in God, guess what you non believers are only 14% of the world population.

I do not mock people who believe in God. I think it is a natural drive of man to believe in God, or a Power, a universal spiritual attachment. I also think it is natural for people to be skeptical. I do not respect beliefs that I think are just plain bizarre, like believing that man lived in the time of dinasaurs or that the earth is only ten thousand years old. Something like 75% of people believe in ghosts, too. What does that mean?

Having said that,
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Originally Posted by MrG

Not all dams do good things to the environment, and some outlive their usefullness. What dams are being torn down and why. A discussion worth having, IMHO.

Many old dams in my state of Washington stifle salmon runs. They have caused a massive decline in salmon population. Many of these dams produce little or no useful energy. The corporations that built or own these dams need to foot the bill to get ride of them to restore habit. One river in the Olympic peninsula the Elwha has already had a dam removed and it has had an enormous impact on the entire ecosystem. There needs to be lots more of this for sure. The industrial revolution in America caused massive ecological damage and that needs to be restored.

These links below show just how amazing this has been in not only restoring salmon runs but to the beaches and other marine life;

Elwha River Restoration - Olympic National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

World?s Largest Dam Removal Unleashes U.S. River After Century of Electric Production

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by MrG

Not all dams do good things to the environment, and some outlive their usefullness. What dams are being torn down and why. A discussion worth having, IMHO.

Many old dams in my state of Washington stifle salmon runs. They have caused a massive decline in salmon population. Many of these dams produce little or no useful energy. The corporations that built or own these dams need to foot the bill to get ride of them to restore habit. One river in the Olympic peninsula the Elwha has already had a dam removed and it has had an enormous impact on the entire ecosystem. There needs to be lots more of this for sure. The industrial revolution in America caused massive ecological damage and that needs to be restored.

These links below show just how amazing this has been in not only restoring salmon runs but to the beaches and other marine life;

Elwha River Restoration - Olympic National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

World?s Largest Dam Removal Unleashes U.S. River After Century of Electric Production

You are obviously not talking about the mega dams on the snake and Columbia rivers, and if the environmentalist had their way all these dams would be gone. Now I ask are most of these environmentalists conservative or liberal.