Forums

Almost all Americans want climate change action

Almost all Americans want climate change action

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/maps-show-where-americans-car...

If this is true why are fossil fuel companies advisors in charge?

Mike83 | 17 avril 2017

so you don't deny being Russian?

johndoeeyed | 17 avril 2017

@MitchP85D
You said "Oh, and you call skeptical science reputable?"
I previously posted, since I expected you to say that, "Before you do your usual, "I do not trust Skeptical Science", read the associated source material provided in the article."
SO, go and read the source material, which is not written by Skeptical Science.

You said "You haven't shown a damn thing Lindzen got wrong! "
Yes I have. I supplied a link and told you to watch the video. It appears you did not. Here is the link.
https://youtu DOT be/tPSIvu0gQ90
After you have watched the link, do some research on Lindzen's predictions, and you will find that he has been totally incorrect, whereas the consensus science has been correct.

So I repeat, yet again:
However, you have been provided with the historic predictions, and shown that the predictions were not overestimating the rise. They have, in fact, been underestimating the actual rise. So here it is once again for you, although you will of course make the same claim again.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
You have not provided the REPUTABLE predictions as I just provided you with. Not only did I just provide a link showing that the REPUTABLE predictions were correct, but it showed how the likes of Lindzen got their predictions totally wrong.

Mike83 | 17 avril 2017

Minimizing Climate Disruption is politically driven and has nothing to do with science based evidence. Following the power driven money changers leads to no mans land

Mike83 | 22 avril 2017

From Bloomberg a well written article but suggests life on earth may continue but possibly without humans.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-21/happy-earth-day-enjoy...

Al1 | 22 avril 2017

Good reading indeed.

We are changing the climate at a geologically unusual rate, he said -- changes comparable to an era of volcanism.... Earth’s climate will probably recover from this human-fueled round of global warming, but “on time scales that are unimaginable to humans.” And perhaps without humans.

RedShift | 22 avril 2017

It's hypothesized that we don't yet have a call from ET coz intelligent life might not be able to sustain itself for long enough time to make contact with another ET intelligent life form.

Remnant | 23 avril 2017

@RedShift (April 22, 2017)

<< It's hypothesized that we don't yet have a call from ET coz intelligent life might not be able to sustain itself for long enough time to make contact with another ET intelligent life form. >>

Wow ... !!!

Keep quiet and low profile. You have a chance to come to on the other side of the Apocalypse, though not necessarily as a human, but compatible with the ET intelligence.

RedShift | 23 avril 2017

@remnant

Try to understand a post before responding. Oh, I forgot, that requires a minimum of high school education. A luxury not afforded by the 'under-the-bridge' people.

SCCRENDO | 23 avril 2017

@remnant. While there lmay be intelligent life out there it could be 1000s of light years away. So even someone with your IQ should be able to comprehend that if it takes 1000s of years to get a message across that travels at the speed of light you are not going to get a good conversation going. So the best we can hope for is a message that gives us enough of a clue that they have been out there at some point.

Mike83 | 23 avril 2017

When there were fewer people on the planet the forests seemed endless, oceans with capacity beyond our understanding and sky limitless. But as we developed more intelligence through the centuries we changed our naive beliefs. After cutting down 95% of the forests, polluting the oceans so much that the pH is dropping from CO2 absorption, changing the CO2 concentrations from 250 to 405 ppm in the only 4 mile high atmosphere in an outrageously short period of time and seeing new diseases and migration where they were never present before I would suggest we have a problem.
In America we were supposed to have freedom of religion and principles on how we treat our neighbors.
Although things look pessimistic I do have hope that the majority of Americans will not be deterred from our principles.

You know that the light we see on earth from a star is only the light as the star may not be in existence. I believe Albert Einstein worked on that issue. E=mc2

Mike83 | 29 avril 2017

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/29/politics/sutter-climate-kids-march-washing...

Our leaders no longer represent the American People.

Mike83 | 6 mai 2017

As most Americans do see the easy solutions to dangerous Climate Disruption the EPA removed information is now here:

MitchP85D | April 29, 2017
SamO, WTF? Bret Stephens was a Wall Street Journal writer the New York Times just hired. And because of this, some goofy, dumb-ass global warming worshippers are having a conniption fit!

Flag as Inappropriate
SamO | April 29, 2017
So? And? I'm always waiting for the other shoe to drop with you.

People are mad that an idiot who knows nothing about climate or science or anything? What is Mr. Stephens knowledgeable on?

Who cares?

So people don't like something . . . I fired a company that used Bill O"Reilly's show to advertise. Got an email 48 hours later explaining how they had pulled all ads.

Vote with your dollars, and don't get distracted by all the shiny.

Hey Mitch. How many ADD kids does it take to change a lightbulb?

Let's go ride bikes.

Save your manufactured outrage, talking points b/s for people who can't be bothered to think for themselves.

Flag as Inappropriate
SCCRENDO | April 29, 2017
Mitch. The New York Times can hire who the hell they like. And I guess they hired this guy to show that they are balanced. To me it was a mistake and a compromise with the devil. He is using his hiring to gain credibility but he is just plain wrong. The science is totally consistent that AGW is real and of concern. It's the speed and severity of of the consequences that relies on probability. And even the most optimistic science is not good. Mitch. Unfortunately you have to trust me on the science because you don't know the science.

Flag as Inappropriate
Mike83 | April 30, 2017
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a-guide-to-the-climate-change...

A pertinent article on the Insanity of being a climate change denier.

MitchP85D | April 30, 2017
All I am doing is demonstrating how intolerant the liberal-socialist mindset is of those who have a different viewpoint from them. When a conservative disagrees with a liberal, the conservative debates the liberal. When a liberal disagrees with a conservative, the liberal WANTS THE CONSERVATIVE FIRED, OR HARMED IN SOME WAY!

And this is the fundamental difference between both sides of the political fence. When an atmospheric scientist presents evidence for natural variability in the climate, the liberal-socialist mindset wants to cause actual harm to that scientist!

The late, great Dr. Bill Gray said it best. Right when the Al Gore inspired global warming hysteria began, the climate research funding should have been evenly split between human-caused global warming and natural climate variability. And then, and only then would we have a real and honest dialogue between climate scientists. But instead, what we got was a postulate from Al Gore and his henchmen, and the climate research funding all went to "proving" humans are changing the climate. And that was the only way climate scientists could get research grants. Dr. Lindzen correctly stated that this process has been corrupted right from the beginning. And now, global warming theory has turned into a multi-billion dollar industry. And anybody who threatens this cartel must be destroyed. Do the global warmunists want an honest dialogue? Of course not! Because they would lose when the evidence mounts that CO2 is not near the climate forcing factor that it is touted to be. So, the global warming worshippers take the easy route by slandering those who question their "authority."

Flag as Inappropriate
SCCRENDO | April 30, 2017
Mitch. You don't debate anyone. You need facts to debate. Get some facts and we will debate.

Flag as Inappropriate
MitchP85D | April 30, 2017
Fact, the Arctic experienced a warming period in the early 20th century. Care to debate that one SCCRENDO?

Flag as Inappropriate
SCCRENDO | April 30, 2017
Mitch. We have discussed this a few times before but here we go again.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advan...
For your benefit I will copy the conclusion but feel free to go through the article in detail and debate individual points

"The "skeptic" logic behind this argument is usually that if the early 20th Century warming was as large as the late century warming, and was natural, then the current warming could be natural as well (note that we've discussed the mid-century cooling elsewhere).

Ultimately while natural forcings can account for much of the early 20th Century warming, humans played a role as well. Additionally, the early century warming wasn't as large or rapid as the late century warming, to which these natural factors did not contribute in any significant amount.

But more importantly, we don't assume that the current warming is caused by humans because it's "unprecedented" or faster and larger than previous natural warming events. We know the current warming is anthropogenic because that's what the physical evidence tells us."

Flag as Inappropriate
MitchP85D | April 30, 2017
SCCRENDO, instead of making assumptions, do you care to look at what the Arctic thermometers show? Or, is that too painful for you to look at!

Flag as Inappropriate
Mike83 | April 30, 2017
It is painful to read Mitchell's dumb posts. An ignore button would clean out the be.

pagrimm1 | May 1, 2017
According to a study in ”The Science of the Total Environment,” there are some interesting FACTS that might shed some light on this discussion. They might even thrown some ”cold snow and ice” on religious assumptions about climate change. See here a quotation from the findings’ abstract:
“The Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is often described as a region with one of the largest warming trends on Earth since the 1950s, based on the temperature trend … recorded at Faraday/Vernadsky station. Accordingly, most works describing the evolution of the natural systems in the AP region cite this extreme trend as the underlying cause of their observed changes. However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. … We show that Faraday/Vernadsky warming trend is an extreme case, circa twice those of the long-term records from other parts of the northern AP. Our results also indicate that the cooling initiated in 1998/1999 has been most significant in the N and NE of the AP and the South Shetland Islands (> 0.5 °C between the two last decades), modest in the Orkney Islands, and absent in the SW of the AP. This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP, including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.”
Now, I am no scientist, but neither are Bill Nye, Albert Gore, Jr., Barack Obama nor Richard Branson. But the above information should at least encourage level-headed discussion.

Flag as Inappropriate
SCCRENDO | May 1, 2017
@pagrimm. Looking at regional warming and cooling trends can be deceiving. One needs to look at global temperatures and what happens to ice melting. Mitch spends his days focusing on some localized changes and often even misquotes the data regarding arctic sea ice on frequent occasions. But one indeed needs to look at the whole picture. Read the link I posted above.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advan...

Flag as Inappropriate
mark.willing | May 1, 2017
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html . The differences between the arctic and antarctic. In some cases, the arctic and the antarctic represent "polar opposites". The vast majority of the obvious effects of increased temperature, ice melt, and green house gas accumulation can be seen in the northern hemisphere. Basic thermodynamics,...all that arctic ice loss isn't occurring because the temperature trends are stable,...it's getting warmer up north. The rapid melting of the permafrost is causing a significant rise in methane and landmass drop (20+ meter sink holes forming). What is or isn't happening in the south is another situation. "Global warming" is nothing more than the average worldwide,...certainly, specific regional climates may actually becoming slightly cooler, but others may becoming significantly warmer. We have to be careful not to "cherry-pick" specific regional climates when the global warming discussion is happening.

Then, there is the discussion of rising sea temperature, rising sea level, and acidification. The atmosphere is one topic, but the seas are a major heat sink and a reservior for CO2 (as carbonic acid). The whole marine ecosystem is at risk.

We could go on and on, but something dramatic is happening,...maybe not in your backyard, but in the northernmost and equatorial regions,...things are changing quickly.

Flag as Inappropriate
Tesla-David | May 1, 2017
@mark.willing +1000, yes, you nailed it!

Flag as Inappropriate
MitchP85D | May 1, 2017
Speaking of looking at the global temperature, hot off the press. The global mean temperature anomaly from the 1981-2010 average is +0.27 deg C for the month of April, 2017.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Oh my goodness. We are burning to a crisp! We are all gonna die from this heat!

Flag as Inappropriate
MitchP85D | May 1, 2017
As of 30 April 2017, the Arctic sea ice extent is 13.447 X 10^6 km2. The Arctic sea ice is now running 305,000 km2 ahead of last year on this date. Yep, that Arctic ice is going to melt away to oblivion! If the heat doesn't burn us alive, the rising sea level Obama failed to stop (remember "the rise of the oceans will slow") id gonna drown us all!

Flag as Inappropriate
MitchP85D | May 1, 2017
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Flag as Inappropriate
MitchP85D | May 1, 2017
Make that, "is gonna drown us all!"

Flag as Inappropriate
MitchP85D | May 1, 2017
By the way, Hadcrut4 data shows that the Arctic mean temperature anomaly from the 1961-1990 average was running between +0.5 deg C to +1.8 deg C from 1920-1945. IT GOT WARM DURING THAT PERIOD. Don't think you can blame CO2 for that!

Flag as Inappropriate
socaldave | May 1, 2017
Whilst I'll agree that Mr Gore went a bit off the deep end in bringing attention to the problem (and it IS a problem), equating liberals with stupidity and conservatives with evil doesn't really advance the discussion. It's unfair to paint people with a politically ideological brush, because most of us don't fit into a neat box like that. I like small government, but I believe health care should be a constitutional right. I think climate change is a massive problem, and whilst some of it is likely attributable to natural occurrences, it's still pretty clear (to me, and I'm no scientist) something needs to change.

To any and all who think it's not a big deal that we keep pumping CO2 into the air... remember that whole acid rain thing? Yeah, that wasn't a good time for a bunch of folks.

I just think that based on the fact we're all on a Tesla forum shows we have at least SOME sort of concern for the environment. Maybe you were walking down the street and a huge semi rode past and you got a lungful of exhaust. Maybe you don't like seeing the smog hanging over your city. The very real point is that there's coming on line new and better ways to generate power, so, if embracing these new forms of energy can result in a better life experience (LIKE LUDICROUS MODE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), I don't see why we need to fight and call people names.

To those who wish to turn a blind eye to such things as receding glaciers, dying coral reefs and the acidification of the oceans... I'd just like to know why you think those things happened. Not to judge, but to understand.

Flag as Inappropriate
RedShift | May 1, 2017
@socaldave

+1

I've been shouting myself hoarse that this is not a liberal vs conservative thing for a long time.

Flag as Inappropriate
Mike83 | May 1, 2017
Some excellent points made. It is amazing that there exists deniers in this era. But the obvious reasons have been exhaustively explained..
Must be something the water these people drink.

Mike83 | May 1, 2017
In the water.

SCCRENDO | May 1, 2017
Mitch. Look at the graph you posted. I have another one as well. If you are so math and science illiterate that you cannot see that 2017 is the lowest yet please go for help to some 4th grader that knows how to read graphs.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Enough of this 1925 nonsense. Look at the link I posted previously to refute it. Do me a favor and educate yourself instead of regurgitating the same old crap.

Flag as Inappropriate
Mike83 | May 4, 2017
This should make climate change deniers very happy. Out of sight out of mind.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110197_epa-website-removes-climate-...

But the danger grows like a drug addicted junkie.

Tesla-David | May 6, 2017
Wow, this 1981 documentary was way ahead of its time in highlighting the looming threat of AGW/Climate Disruption entitled: "Warming Warning". I do not remember watching it, but the clips provided show they were correct.
http://www.ecowatch.com/warming-warning-documentary-2388980379.html?utm_...

Flag as Inappropriate
Tesla-David | May 6, 2017
This quote at the end of the documentary is spot on correct: "Yet we're mortgaging the World against the future to be paid by our descendants, our children. The carbon dioxide problem is a warning..."

Flag as Inappropriate
Mike83 | May 6, 2017
The removed EPA Climate Change is now here:

https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/sites/climatechange/home.html

MitchP85D | 6 mai 2017

Hey ozone hole Mike, what's up with all of this "Flag as Inappropriate" crap?

I take it that anybody who disagrees with you is inappropriate? Yep, that is exactly how you goofy, dumb-ass liberals think!

Mike83 | 6 mai 2017

For those with memory loss issues focused on one dimension it might help those less fortunate to keep information for a better argument versus insults.

MitchP85D | 6 mai 2017

Insults beget insults. You ain't so innocent ozone hole Mike!

Mike83 | 6 mai 2017
Mike83 | 6 mai 2017

In Russia they wear masks from pollution. I guess Americans should put in some orders for breathing equipment as pollution is allowed for profit.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20...

Mike83 | 9 mai 2017

If the federal government attempts to back out of the Paris Agreement they are going against the will of the American people. The blowback will be not be pretty.

Silver2K | 9 mai 2017

This US citizen wants climate change!

:)

MitchP85D | 9 mai 2017

Climate has always changed, with or without humans!

Mike83 | 9 mai 2017

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-doomsday-glacier-w481260

Trolls have absolutely nothing but retread information based on false news opinions NOT science. They repeat nonsense ad nauseum to disrupt civil discourse.

johndoeeyed | 9 mai 2017

@MitchP85D
Asteroids ave always hit earth catastrophically, with or without humans!
Best to not do anything when the next one comes.

johndoeeyed | 9 mai 2017

"Almost all Americans want climate change action"
Almost all Americans do not take action themselves.
Almost all Americans want somebody else to take action.

massimob30 | 10 mai 2017

Mike83 - Climate change is not a significant issue on the minds of voters. In fact, it ranks at the bottom of the list of most pressing issues when voters were asked.

If climate change is the hill you want to die on in an attempt to change the electorate, Trump might as well start picking out White House curtains for his second term in the White House. I know you will spew some nonsense to remedy the butt hurt over this fact, but the truth is, voters just don't care about it in terms of electing a candidate.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-elect...

Mike83 | 10 mai 2017

It is an issue and as the Climate Disruption continues the liars and profiteers will be held accountable.

MitchP85D | 10 mai 2017

Hey massimob, Pew Research is about as straight forward and unbiased as you can get. Will that matter to these global warming worshippers? Not only no, but hell no!

Mike83 | 10 mai 2017

Ironic that Pew, a liberal biased report is used when it fits with the climate deniers false arguments, of course if they read it correctly which I doubt.

MitchP85D | 10 mai 2017

Well ozone hole Mike, what I got from it is that the environment was at the bottom of the list of voters' concerns.

MitchP85D | 10 mai 2017

"Common folks have sense, academics don't!"

johndoeeyed | 10 mai 2017

People vote for what they believe is in their own short term interest. Even though many people believe that Climate Change is happening, and is a grave threat for the future, they still voted for Trump. That is an indictment of the short-sighted selfish nature of people, and not an indictment of the science.

Mike83 | 10 mai 2017

The voters believed that Climate Disruption was a debate which was promoted by fossil fuel interests. The deception was to enrich the very rich. Of course the popular vote, gerrymandering and voter suppression may also be a factor.
The science is indisputable.

MitchP85D | 10 mai 2017

So whatsyourface, I have a rhetorical question for you. Which is better for the environment? Impoverished parts of the world that burn wood for their source of energy? Or, the technologically advanced parts of the world that burn fossil fuels. One or the other. Pick one.

johndoeeyed | 10 mai 2017

@MitchP85D
If you want an answer from me then do not specify the question as being rhetorical.

massimob30 | 10 mai 2017

Johndoeeyed - even many Democratic voters don't base their vote on climate change, are they also selfish and shortsighted ?

Liberals have no one to blame but themselves for making foolish predictions that failed to deliver.

Mitch985D makes a good point. We burned a hell of a lot of fossil fuels to develop our country, and now we try to tell other countries not to do the same as they want to develop their countries ? I don't blame them for wanting to give us the middle finger.

MitchP85D | 10 mai 2017

I knew you would not answer it whatsyourface. Because it stumps you!

johndoeeyed | 10 mai 2017

@massimob30
Most

@MitchP85D
I repeat:
If you want an answer from me then do not specify the question as being rhetorical.
Hint:
Look up rhetorical in the dictionary

MitchP85D | 10 mai 2017

I know the meaning. I'm just being up front and honest with you concerning my motivation. I knew you would wuss out of answering the question!

Hey whatsyourface, you need to get out more and enjoy life. And quit worrying about the non-existent apocalypse that is soon to come!

johndoeeyed | 10 mai 2017

@MitchP85D
Please read my statement which was (one again):
If you want an answer from me then do not specify the question as being rhetorical.

There are two things contained in that statement:
1) Because you said it was rhetorical, I should not answer it
2) If you want me to answer it, do not ask it rhetorically.

vp09 | 10 mai 2017

Uncle Paul
Awesome argument
Plus One Thousand
Have you seen the film Captain Fantastic?

Mike83 | 11 mai 2017

The emotional responses from Climate Disruption Deniers explains an inherent bias that puts up a mental block to facts. This is something in my research that I have concluded. To counter reality the deniers must scapegoat something, anything to feel vindicated in their erroneous beliefs. The need to feel RIGHT is the most important motive in their limited imaginations. They end up harming themselves and others. It is really a sad way to have to live. I think they get an audience due to people pitying them. Creating drama is a tactic that George Orwell explained in his book 1984 to keep populace in a constant war so that the rich could benefit.

MitchP85D | 11 mai 2017

OK whatsyourface. Remove rhetorical from my question. Can you answer it now? Which is better. Burning wood, or fossil fuel?

Mike83 | 11 mai 2017
SCCRENDO | 11 mai 2017

It looks like the Alaskans don't buy Mitch's graph interpretation of the Arctic ice extent
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39887133

johndoeeyed | 11 mai 2017

@MitchP85D
Burning wood.
As I have explained to you before, burning wood is carbon neutral, coal is not.
It would help if you would remember what has already been explained to you.

MitchP85D | 11 mai 2017

I got it out of 'em. whatshisface is a WOOD BURNER!!!! Yeeeeeee Haawwwwww!!!!

Hey SCCRENDO, if what you say is true about Alaskans, then why didn't they vote for Hillary?

By the way SCCRENDO buddy boy. I have a name for ya. Yep, I'm name calling you. For now on, I will call you Captain Planet!

There now. Don't you think I'm a nicer guy than Remnant?

SCCRENDO | 11 mai 2017

Mitch. How come you guys need nicknames for everyone? Yes you are nicer than Remnant and probably a lot smarter but I guess that's not saying much.

Who knows whether those Alaskans voted for Hillary. Perhaps they were more concerned about her using the wrong email server.

Mike83 | 11 mai 2017

I guess some haven't yet evolved past the cave man period or have reverted backwards. LOL That must be what they mean by the good ole days.

johndoeeyed | 11 mai 2017

@MitchP85D
As I said in my previous post, we have had this discussion before, so you did not "got it out of 'em."
No, I am not a wood burner.
Yes, sustainably grown wood is carbon neutral as a source of energy.
https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/repetitive-trolls-long-history-43

MitchP85D | 11 mai 2017

Mr. Captain Planet sir, I'll tell you why Alaska went for Trump instead of Hillary. I know the Alaskan folks. THEY DON'T LIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO!

It's a Texan thing. Remember W? He nicknamed several of the White House press corps. We just like to nickname folks, that's all.

Hey whatsyourface, I seriously don't burning wood will suffice as an energy source!

Pages