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?

MitchP85D | 12 april 2017

Redshift/SamO, we all spin each others' points.

Mike83 | 12 april 2017
Remnant | 12 april 2017

@phawker1 (April 12, 2017)

<< [List of right things to do] ... No government or political intervention necessary, just all the believers doing what we know is the right things to do. >>

Your list of right things to do is certainly basic, but I would include one more thing that could indeed save the planet:

All of us should quit farting!

Mike83 | 13 april 2017

Scientists are going into politics since there are so many lawyers who have no knowledge of science entrenched in our government. This link has some good info for the pitfalls of making a change but also other types of actions.

https://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7649-259a?W...

Mike83 | 13 april 2017

LOL. A climate change denier who thinks he is like Einstein. Come on Arizona, you can do better.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/142035/climate-denying-congressman-compa...

Mike83 | 13 april 2017

Great to see mainstream media getting interested in the costs of Climate Disruption. Disease is not fun.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/health/climate-change-health-risks-us-map-...

Remnant | 13 april 2017

@Mike83 (April 12, 2017)

<< Climate deniers ... swallow fake news driven by ideology. It is interesting to see what demons drive their hate ... scapegoating, blame, shame, etc. >>

Very unfortunate choice of words. No one is denying "climate", AFAIK.

Some posters on this thread express skepticism about some of the data and about the alarmist interpretations proffered by the "AGW" zealots, but calling them "climate deniers" is an abuse of language and logic and a farcical rendition of reality.

Furthermore, attributing "ideology" and "hate" to them as motives for their doubts, ideas, or convictions is quite misleading, as climate skeptics are far from being a monolithic block, in terms of specialty, academic background, philosophy, politics, or emotional response to climate issues. Most of them appear to display or experience some degree of contempt for the AGW errors, sophistry, and ill faith.

MitchP85D | 13 april 2017

And Remnant, when we point out the false prognostications of the AGW zealots, their cries of "climate change denier" become even more shrill!

Mike83 | 13 april 2017

Much worse than climate models predicted. Just look at the pictures if you can't comprehend facts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/world-zero-carbon-emissions-bef...

Mike83 | 14 april 2017

This is a very interesting link. One takeaway is that Republicans will ignore facts only listening to their leaders EVEN if they are wrong. This explains a lot.

https://thinkprogress.org/climate-change-and-weather-e5be90138c36

johndoeeyed | 14 april 2017

March 2017 is now the second hottest March on record, after 2016 which was a large El Nino year.
February 2017 was the second hottest on record.
January 2017 was the third hottest on record.
Historically La Nina, or neutral, years are significantly cooler than El Nino years. This has now changed. We have entered an era of new climate behaviour. If the El Nino years still continue to be significantly warmer than La Nina, or neutral years, then the next El Nino will go into scary uncharted territory. We have crossed yet another tipping point.
https://robertscribbler.com/2017/04/14/no-el-nino-but-march-of-2017-was-...

Mike83 | 14 april 2017

The good news is many are moving ahead despite the detractors.

http://inhabitat.com/portland-commits-to-100-percent-renewable-energy-by...

MitchP85D | 14 april 2017

Hey whatsyourface, how many so-called tipping points on the order of hundredths of degree C do you have to come to before you come to the realization that the delta T is too small to have any significant effects during your little itty bitty blip of a lifespan on earth?

johndoeeyed | 14 april 2017

@MitchP85D
It is not hundredths of a degree as you have been told many times before.
It is already about 1.3C since the industrial revolution, and is on track to be 4C-6C.
A La Nina year being so warm is the first time that it has happened (in human history). If you disagree then provide a reputable link. You will not do so, because there is none.

MitchP85D | 15 april 2017

The AGW zealots have been crying gloom and doom for quite some time. Their predictions have blown up in their faces. It isn't happening. Dr. Lindzen is right. The more stable our climate is, the more shrill you AGW zealots become!

johndoeeyed | 15 april 2017

@MitchP85D
You have made similar claims about the predictions before, and have been asked to substantiate them, but you do not. 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
PS:
Before you do your usual, "I do not trust Skeptical Science", read the associated source material provided in the article.

johndoeeyed | 15 april 2017

@MitchP85D
And if you actually want to know who has made abysmally incorrect predictions, including your own oft mentioned Lindzen, watch the short video in the article. His predictions were both pathetic and woefully incorrect.

Mike83 | 15 april 2017

A link discussing electricity use and why we are using so much less. Coal?

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/d91k0or6VSBzvWlOGWy2AI/The-deelectrifica...

People are using solar more and the future appears bright. Pun intended.

MitchP85D | 15 april 2017

If you love solar so much, go for it. I'm not stopping anybody from using solar. Just don't use the force of government to make everybody else use it!

Note all the hydro-electric power that the northwestern states use. Why is that? They have mountains. Not everybody has mountains. Don't force hydro on the states that don't have mountains. Likewise, some states have wetter, cloudier weather than other states. Don't force solar onto the states where solar will be less effective!

MitchP85D | 15 april 2017

Hey whatsyourface, I have shown the gloom and doom predictions of the AGW zealots of the past. It is like talking to a fence post when I show it to you!

SamO | 15 april 2017

The government "force" isn't involved. Solar electricity is already cheaper than gas and coal.

Batteries are already there.

Goodbye oil. Goodbye coal. Goodbye fossil fuels.

We will no longer be "grave robbers" of your decomposing bodies.

Remnant | 15 april 2017

@johndoeeyed (April 15, 2017)

<< @MitchP85D ... You have made similar claims about the predictions before, and have been asked to substantiate them, but you do not. >>

No amount of evidence can justify the AGW claim of holding the ultimate and definitive scientific truth, or the view that all holders of a skeptical "climate change" or AGW perspective are climate science "deniers", or the invective and vilification such skeptics are subjected to by the AGW zealots.

OTOH, skepticism and open-mindedness have always been the hallmark of science and scientific outlooks, while the impostors of science have forever basked in the false radiance of sometimes fashionable but wrong, irrational, or fraudulent data and theories. AGW zealotry and alarmism belong – along with UFO science, necromancy, mesmerism, numerology, black magic, etc. – in the trash bin of aberrations humans engage in, from time to time.

johndoeeyed | 15 april 2017

@MitchP85D
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. So what did you do? Did you respond with links to reputable predictions being incorrect - No. You simply made yet another post with zero evidence.

johndoeeyed | 15 april 2017

@Remnant
Your argument is that nothing should be taken as true based on the scientific evidence. We therefore should not trust that gravity is real and that falling from a great height will likely result in death. We should not put guard rails on stairwells or balconies, or use a parachute when jumping out of a plane, because hey, maybe gravity doesn't exist after all. That is patently absurd.

MitchP85D | 16 april 2017

Hey whatsyourface, want some goofy-ass global warming zealotry and their goofy-ass predictions? Here ya go!

BBC December 12, 2007: “Arctic Summers Ice-Free by 2013”
The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice’. This story was within a more rational story in the Daily Mail.

ABC News, April 7, 2008: “North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008” (source)
Because of the large ice melt in 2007, Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said “This raises the spectre – the possibility that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year.”

Sierra Club, March 23, 2013: “Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (source)
“”For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean.”

And those are just barely scratching the surface! Got a whole lot more if you want.

MitchP85D | 16 april 2017

Hey whatsyourface, none of your silly AGW zealots would dare to stand next to Lindzen in a debate! Anytime they tried, Lindzen made them look like fools!

johndoeeyed | 16 april 2017

@MitchP85D
Please read my request properly. I will even capitalise the approriate word for you from my last post to you:
"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. So what did you do? Did you respond with links to REPUTABLE predictions being incorrect - No. You simply made yet another post with zero evidence."

The predictions of Professor Wieslaw Maslowski never were not the accepted predictions of the scientific community. It was the prediction of one man. Not only that, but the prediction wasn't even for the global temperature rise which we are discussing. It was for an ice free Arctic.
In summary, I ask for reputable temperature predictions, you know, like from NOAA or the IPCC (s I have already provided you with), and you respond with an ice free arctic prediction from a lone man.

So I say again:
Please read my request properly. I will even capitalise the approriate word for you from my last post to you:
"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. So what did you do? Did you respond with links to REPUTABLE predictions being incorrect - No. You simply made yet another post with zero evidence." (although 'zero' is now 'non-reputable non-consensus on-another-topic one man prediction)

Mike83 | 16 april 2017

Mitch. You always seem to take the thread off topic with your Jim Jones kook aid BS. What happened to your own thread? You are not like most Americans who do believe in facts. Your beliefs in fake propaganda paid for by fossil fuel interests is very transparent and laughable.

SamO | 16 april 2017

Al Gore
Al Gore
Al Gore
.
.
.
Was the demon summoned?

Lulz. Try science instead of hyperbole and innuendo.

MitchP85D | 16 april 2017

Hey SamO 60 buddy, Al Gore is your guy. So, I hang him around your cause like a noose!

Hey whatsyourface, what you call reputable, I call being dependent on the global warming gravy train!

You silly little link that shows how "good" the climate prediction models have been are all updated and adjusted AFTER the models grossly exaggerated the predictions. John Christy has demonstrated before the US Congress how awful the climate prediction models have been when he compiled all 102 IPCC climate prediction models from 1979 and ran them to the present. No scientist has refuted Christy on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4-uxU4LRJs&t=6s

MitchP85D | 16 april 2017

Make that, "Your silly little link..."

RedShift | 16 april 2017

Its very fashionable in tribal circles to invoke Al Gore. Especially when science doesn't support your views, all you have left are weak sauce attacks on individuals like him.

And the cherry on top, they think they are annoying us, or that they are 'winning'.

Amusing, but in that 'look at that five year old using the same old comeback' sort of way. :-)

Remnant | 16 april 2017

@RedShift (April 16, 2017)

<< ... "science" doesn't support your views, all you have left are "weak sauce" attacks on individuals like [Al Gore]. >>

Who is "science"?

What is "weak sauce"?

Tesla-David | 16 april 2017

I am sick and tired of deniers invoking Al Gore every time we provide links to science that supports the 97% consensus conclusion that AGW/Disruption/chaos is real and a present threat to the habitability of Planet Earth for humans and other living things. Al Gore was right in 1992 in pointing out the problem that carbon emissions were causing in his book "Earth in the Balance", and he is right now in helping to lead efforts for action. You deniers are absolutely idiots of the first rank. Not sure how you sleep at night if you have children/grandchildren who will be irrevocably harmed by not acting on this issue.

lauriebhatia | 16 april 2017

hm interesting

SamO | 16 april 2017

"Your guy . . ."?

Like I said . . . Try science rather than artsy of logical fallacies.
Or, as Elon Musk suggests . . . First principles.

www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_log...

johndoeeyed | 16 april 2017

@MitchP85D
You can choose your own reputable organisation. You made the claim that their predictions were wrong, so you only need to pick the organisations that you were referring to. The graphs are not updated after the fact. They are the graphs as published at the time. You can confirm this by looking at the old source material yourself. You have made yet another false claim.
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.
PS:
There are tow threads running at the moment with separate false claims by yourself. In both threads you have failed to provide reputable evidence to support your claims. This is not new. This has been your behaviour for years on this forum. You have had your claims falsified multiple times on this forum, but you just keep repeating them.

Tesla-David | 17 april 2017

Thanks Mike, Dr. Michael Mann is a hero for me, who courageously stands up to the relentless attacks and threats he receives daily from deniers who can't stand to be exposed for the lying hypocrites they are.

massimob30 | 17 april 2017

Being skeptical is not lying Tesla-David, particularly when your proclamations of the end of humanity were wrong. If you make the claim, the burden of proof and accuracy is yours.

Mike83 | 17 april 2017

David. The man has courage. Truth wins in the end.

SamO | 17 april 2017

Nope . The burden is on polluters. We don't need gasoline. We don't need coal. We don't need natural gas.

We need 100 Gigafactories.

MitchP85D | 17 april 2017

Hey whatsyourface, not one scientist, not one anybody has refuted Dr. John Christy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R1ElVuyEpo

Mike83 | 17 april 2017

Nor has one scientist refuted Humpty Dumpty, whateveryourfaceis.

MitchP85D | 17 april 2017

Wrong SamO, the burden is on you statists who want to tell everybody how to live their lives!

Mike83 | 17 april 2017

Never heard of Humpty Whatseveryourfaceis? All the Kings Men couldn't put Humpty together again.
How about, The proof is in the pudding?
Your not Russian are your?

SamO | 17 april 2017

Strawman. Nobody is "telling you how to run your life".

Your Tesla is better than gas.

Your solar powered home is just better than transporting electricity all over the place from central generation.

Your stationary batteries will allow you to be truly independent and sustainable.

johndoeeyed | 17 april 2017

@MitchP85D
Dr. John Christy has been refuted many times, but that is totally beside the point.
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.

MitchP85D | 17 april 2017

Oh, and you call skeptical science reputable? You haven't shown a damn thing Lindzen got wrong! Mann had an opportunity to refute John Christy before Congress on 29 MAR 2017. He didn't! Curry, on the other hand, showed what a liar Mann is!

Pages