The Republican Consensus On Climate Change is Real, Documented and Recorded History

[Cigar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ckxLgsUQmHg

This video includes quotes from George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, House Speaker Boehner, Senator John McCain and others talking about how they see Climate Change as a threat, that it is real and that it is human caused.

So what exactly happened to the Conservative thinking on Climate Change after the Year 2008? :huh:

http://jd2i.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/barack-obama-michelle-obama-and-john-roberts-at-2009-inauguration.jpg

:afro:

[Peter1469]

Meaningless. Spend out tax dollars on real issues.

[Cigar]

The Subject of this Tread is; Conservatives had a widely advertized Consensus on Climate Change up to 2008.

What happened to their message all of a sudden?

[Alyosha]

Climate science is relatively a new scientific domain. For many years there was no consensus on what fields of study made up climate science or a climate science curriculum. It wasn't until the early 90's that there was even a general discipline in colleges for Environmental science.

The earth is the most complex system we could possibly study and to say there is consensus one way or the other I think is pure hubris.

Putting all your eggs in one basket, pro or con, and using that to prepare for disaster A over disaster B is imprudent, in my opinion.

[Peter1469]

A good question for republicans.

My position is clear. Spend our tax dollars on something we can really fix.

[Cigar]

A good question for republicans.

My position is clear. Spend our tax dollars on something we can really fix.

Worked just fine on the level of crap coming out tailpipes

[Cigar]

Climate science is relatively a new scientific domain. For many years there was no consensus on what fields of study made up climate science or a climate science curriculum. It wasn't until the early 90's that there was even a general discipline in colleges for Environmental science.

The earth is the most complex system we could possibly study and to say there is consensus one way or the other I think is pure hubris.

Putting all your eggs in one basket, pro or con, and using that to prepare for disaster A over disaster B is imprudent, in my opinion.

I don't think any intelligent individual is suggesting putting all the eggs in one basket, but to totally discount the actual science supporting climate change is flat out stupid, and it's really moronic to take a Politician's opinions on climate change over an actual Climatologist.

[Chris]

The Subject of this Tread is; Conservatives had a widely advertized Consensus on Climate Change up to 2008.

What happened to their message all of a sudden?



I think you mean Republicans, not conservatives, as your a pure partisan.

So what of it, Republicans are as wrong as Democrats. They both politicize the science, as they do everything, and that is just plain and simple wrongheaded. Why do expect anything else?

[Chris]

Climate science is relatively a new scientific domain. For many years there was no consensus on what fields of study made up climate science or a climate science curriculum. It wasn't until the early 90's that there was even a general discipline in colleges for Environmental science.

The earth is the most complex system we could possibly study and to say there is consensus one way or the other I think is pure hubris.

Putting all your eggs in one basket, pro or con, and using that to prepare for disaster A over disaster B is imprudent, in my opinion.



Well said.

Should anyone want to hear the same from a renowned climatologist go read or listen to Judith Curry on Climate Change (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/12/judith_curry_on.html)


Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and blogger at Climate Etc. talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about climate change. Curry argues that climate change is a "wicked problem" with a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the expected damage as well as the political and technical challenges of dealing with the phenomenon. She emphasizes the complexity of the climate and how much of the basic science remains incomplete. The conversation closes with a discussion of how concerned citizens can improve their understanding of climate change and climate change policy.

She's one of the most honest people I know speaking out about climate change. Here are here conclusing remarks:


I think again, I think the framing of the wicked problem is useful here. It's so complicated that we don't really understand it very well. We understand aspects of it but there are aspects that we don't understand, and we continue to be surprised by what nature dishes out in front of us. Again, I think this is why the wicked problem is a useful one for framing to the public. And in terms of biases, I think--and I write a lot about the social psychology of science and understanding bias and trying to weed out biases and trying to identify them. I've been reading that literature for the last maybe 3 years ago, basically, since I've been working on the blog a lot. And it's really illuminating to me to try to uncover my own biases. We all have them. And I think self-awareness by scientists and by members of the public is an important thing. So trying to understand your own biases and be aware of them; and hidden biases--'Oh, I didn't think that would be a source of bias but now that I think about it, it probably is.' So, everybody has biases, but it's the job of scientists to try to weed those out and be as objective as we possibly can. So I view it as this is part of the scientific process, to try to weed out our biases and be as objective as we can. And when you hear disagreement and debate about an issue such as climate change, again the conflicts are not only over science, but they are also about values. And they are also about politics. And sometimes these things get hopelessly mixed up. And I would argue that in the climate change debate, values, politics, and science have gotten rather muddled. Not just in the public debate but even in the minds of scientists. So again there's no simple solution. And if you are interested in trying to understand this issue better I encourage you to engage with some of the blogs. Pick a couple of blogs and read the posts and the comments and even consider participating. I think a lot of people who engage in the blogs and participate in the discussion do learn a lot of things about the science itself and also about the public debate and the political tradeoffs. And a lot of people, even though they are partisan and incline toward one side or the other, I think a lot of the people who are partisan also do check out some of the opposing blogs just to see what's going on. And it's a check. So I think the blogosphere is really an interesting development that can help people engage and understand what the debate and controversies are all about.

[Peter1469]

Worked just fine on the level of crap coming out tailpipes

Pollution is something we can curb. CO2 is plant food.

[Peter1469]

And computer climate models are as good as the data included. When the climate scientists tell you that they don't know all of the factors that create our climate, one must wonder just how good the climate models really are.


Climate science is relatively a new scientific domain. For many years there was no consensus on what fields of study made up climate science or a climate science curriculum. It wasn't until the early 90's that there was even a general discipline in colleges for Environmental science.

The earth is the most complex system we could possibly study and to say there is consensus one way or the other I think is pure hubris.

Putting all your eggs in one basket, pro or con, and using that to prepare for disaster A over disaster B is imprudent, in my opinion.

[Peter1469]

It is a scam. Don't buy the snake oil.


I don't think any intelligent individual is suggesting putting all the eggs in one basket, but to totally discount the actual science supporting climate change is flat out stupid, and it's really moronic to take a Politician's opinions on climate change over an actual Climatologist.

[Alyosha]

I don't think any intelligent individual is suggesting putting all the eggs in one basket, but to totally discount the actual science supporting climate change is flat out stupid, and it's really moronic to take a Politician's opinions on climate change over an actual Climatologist.

I don't discount any evidence pro or evidence con.

[Cigar]

I think you mean Republicans, not conservatives, as your a pure partisan.

So what of it, Republicans are as wrong as Democrats. They both politicize the science, as they do everything, and that is just plain and simple wrongheaded. Why do expect anything else?

As someone with a Science and Technical education, experience and background, I personally don't care what a politician says, Democrat or Republican. As a technologist I value the source of knowledge, experience and actual data of Scientist.

Politicians know Politics, Scientist know Science.

[Cigar]

I don't discount any evidence pro or evidence con.

Exactly ... you don't have to be hit by a Train to know the Science behind Velocity and Impact or Travel to the Moon to study Weightlessness. :wink:

Sometimes Denial is simply Stupid

[Alyosha]

As someone with a Science and Technical education, experience and background, I personally don't care what a politician says, Democrat or Republican. As a technologist I value the source of knowledge, experience and actual data of Scientist.

Politicians know Politics, Scientist know Science.


I had a dual path in the beginning as I was considering environmental law. I even sucked it up and took organic chem. This is why I understand that this field is an amalgamation.

As you know with advanced degrees is that you stop becoming a jack of all trades and then hyper-focus your field to a narrow area where you can obtain a subject matter expertise. Climate science is not even fully defined on what educational tracks/path you need to enter the field. It is far too broad and the data is far too broad to truly say one way or the other.

What we're looking at is a best guess, and I would feel better about the best guess if I also didn't know how research if funded.

I do believe that man has some kind of impact, it would be foolish to say otherwise, but my concern is that the impact is methane gas (from human waste, animal waste, and decay) rather than the lauded CO2.

And I think that is where the politics lie. There is a CO2 industry, thus making me consider the information coming out with a jaded eye.

[Chris]

As someone with a Science and Technical education, experience and background, I personally don't care what a politician says, Democrat or Republican. As a technologist I value the source of knowledge, experience and actual data of Scientist.

Politicians know Politics, Scientist know Science.


Then why are you mixing the two up?

[Peter1469]

As someone with a Science and Technical education, experience and background, I personally don't care what a politician says, Democrat or Republican. As a technologist I value the source of knowledge, experience and actual data of Scientist.

Politicians know Politics, Scientist know Science.

Then don't discount it when the scientists manipulate the data to keep the federal grants rolling in. :smiley:

[Chris]

And computer climate models are as good as the data included. When the climate scientists tell you that they don't know all of the factors that create our climate, one must wonder just how good the climate models really are.



As good as the models programmed to show the Keynesian multiplier effect.

[Cigar]

Then don't discount it when the scientists manipulate the data to keep the federal grants rolling in. :smiley:

Not every Scientist on the planet needs Federal Grants :rollseyes:

[Cigar]

Then why are you mixing the two up?

I'm not the one Mixing the two ...

Scientist have Actual Data to support their claims ... what do Politicians have?

[Chris]

I'm not the one Mixing the two ...

Scientist have Actual Data to support their claims ... what do Politicians have?


Why you certainly are by posting this under US Politics and taking a partisan stance criticizing only Reps. Cigar, you're fairly transparent.

[Peter1469]

Not every Scientist on the planet needs Federal Grants :rollseyes:

And not every scientists believes in the man-made global warming meme.

(At least not beyond a minimal effect).

[Peter1469]

Cherry picked data.


I'm not the one Mixing the two ...

Scientist have Actual Data to support their claims ... what do Politicians have?

[Captain Obvious]

Republicans (and democrats) by definition are anti-qualified to comment on climate change.

[Peter1469]

Republicans (and democrats) by definition are anti-qualified to comment on climate change.

It would be nice if Congress did something useful rather than fall for this meme.

[Cigar]

Why you certainly are by posting this under US Politics and taking a partisan stance criticizing only Reps. Cigar, you're fairly transparent.

Real simple ... one is driving the other :wink:

[Cigar]

It would be nice if Congress did something useful rather than fall for this meme.

It would be nicer if our Politicians do their Job.

[Captain Obvious]

It would be nicer if our Politicians do their Job.

It would be nice if our voting collective did it's job.

The buck stops there regardless of what some may say.

[Chris]

Real simple ... one is driving the other :wink:

Right, and you're Miss Daisy.

http://i.snag.gy/qFDBr.jpg

Where do you want to go today?

[Chris]

It would be nicer if our Politicians do their Job.

They do when they oppose each other.

[Cigar]

They do when they oppose each other.

That's not their Job ... maybe someone should send them back to School

[Captain Obvious]

They do when they oppose each other.

Cigar has no clue what that means.

None.

[Cigar]

Cigar has no clue what that means.

None.

You'll get to see the came treatment soon, then we'll see how you like it.

[Chris]

In climate change politicians have a place at the end of the line. First come scientists who debate and describe the causes and effects. Then come economists, sociologists and others to analyze the economic, social and other impacts. Then come the people. Last the politicians.

For example, even assuming man has an impact on climate change, and I don't doubt it, the question remains how much and how much will that affect us? Even assuming enough negative impact to do something, and I don't doubt this either, the question remains should our efforts be towards stopping man's impact on climate or effecting our adaptation to it in terms of food, clothing, shelter and so on, or some of each?

[Cigar]

Kinda reminds you of when this country debated Seat-belts :rollseyes:

[Codename Section]

Kinda reminds you of when this country debated Seat-belts :rollseyes:

Debated seat belts or forcing people to wear them?

[Chris]

That's not their Job ... maybe someone should send them back to School

It is their job. Congress was designed that way with different parties and division into House and Senate. And that continues with division between branches and then between the federal government, the states and the people. It was designed for contention in order to limit its powers. Madison did a damn fine job of it!

[Captain Obvious]

Debated seat belts or forcing people to wear them?

And motorcyclists don't have to wear a helmet.

How much more fucking idiot can that be?

[Captain Obvious]

You'll get to see the came treatment soon, then we'll see how you like it.

What is incoherent statements, Alex?

[Cigar]

Debated seat belts or forcing people to wear them?

In Illinois you can chose or chose not to wear seat-belts, not drive the speed limit, not stop at stop signs ... or not obey any laws, if you don't want to. :laugh:

It's your Fucking Choice

[zelmo1234]

The Subject of this Tread is; Conservatives had a widely advertized Consensus on Climate Change up to 2008.

What happened to their message all of a sudden?

It got Cold

[zelmo1234]

Worked just fine on the level of crap coming out tailpipes

Making reasonable reductions in pollution and Climate change are 2 very different things in my opinion?

We needed to reduce Acid rains. air pollution that was causing illness and better care for the environment?

I am a wildlife nut! and I am all for reasonable laws that help to reduce pollution? But Global warming does not come into that train of thought for me!

[zelmo1234]

I don't think any intelligent individual is suggesting putting all the eggs in one basket, but to totally discount the actual science supporting climate change is flat out stupid, and it's really moronic to take a Politician's opinions on climate change over an actual Climatologist.

It is really not about weather or not it will be studied? It is who is going to pay for it? and at this time in our history, we have many other areas that could use the money!

[zelmo1234]

Exactly ... you don't have to be hit by a Train to know the Science behind Velocity and Impact or Travel to the Moon to study Weightlessness. :wink:

Sometimes Denial is simply Stupid

All things that can be proven, unlike predicting the weather?

However the climate Change con artists missed there chance, they should have taken credit for the decline in Temps and the expansion of the ice cap, instead of lying about it!

[Nemo]

The overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate caused by hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere, and that anthropogenic activity is a significant contributing factor. What we know is that the polar icecaps are melting as evidenced by satellite imagery and decrease in mass verified by scientific measurements in situ. We also know that climate change occurs naturally as evidenced by core samples of the earth's surface. However, what we are seeing now is abrupt climate change; which the evidence links to the growth of the earth’s human population and activities over the past 250 years; and, most dramatically, in the last half century. What we know is that there is only a thin layer of ozone that shields the earth from the sun’s rays; and that it is being depleted by industrial emissions into the atmosphere resulting in the rise of the ocean temperature that generates the earth’s climate conditions. Just a small change in ocean temperature will affect the thermohaline conveyor leading to more harsh winter weather, reduced soil moisture and more intense winds in regions that provide the significant portion of the world’s food production, and cause a dramatic decrease in the human carrying capacity of the earth’s environment

The global warming deniers have succeeded in politicizing the issue, and they are wrong; for the true test of science is empirical evidence, not political correctness. The fact that there is a lack of consensus of opinion is inapposite. See article "The cold truth about climate change," by Joseph Romm, Salon (February 27, 2008). As Dr. Romm put it: "What matters is scientific findings - data, not opinions."
http://www.salon.com/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/

[Peter1469]

No it isn't. Thousands of scientists question that. When the warmists proclaim that the debate is over, you know that they lost the debate.


The overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate caused by hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere, and that anthropogenic activity is a significant contributing factor. What we know is that the polar icecaps are melting as evidenced by satellite imagery and decrease in mass verified by scientific measurements in situ. We also know that climate change occurs naturally as evidenced by core samples of the earth's surface. However, what we are seeing now is abrupt climate change; which the evidence links to the growth of the earth’s human population and activities over the past 250 years; and, most dramatically, in the last half century. What we know is that there is only a thin layer of ozone that shields the earth from the sun’s rays; and that it is being depleted by industrial emissions into the atmosphere resulting in the rise of the ocean temperature that generates the earth’s climate conditions. Just a small change in ocean temperature will affect the thermohaline conveyor leading to more harsh winter weather, reduced soil moisture and more intense winds in regions that provide the significant portion of the world’s food production, and cause a dramatic decrease in the human carrying capacity of the earth’s environment

The global warming deniers have succeeded in politicizing the issue, and they are wrong; for the true test of science is empirical evidence, not political correctness. The fact that there is a lack of consensus of opinion is inapposite. See article "The cold truth about climate change," by Joseph Romm, Salon (February 27, 2008). As Dr. Romm put it: "What matters is scientific findings - data, not opinions."
http://www.salon.com/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/

[Chris]

The overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate caused by hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere, and that anthropogenic activity is a significant contributing factor. What we know is that the polar icecaps are melting as evidenced by satellite imagery and decrease in mass verified by scientific measurements in situ. We also know that climate change occurs naturally as evidenced by core samples of the earth's surface. However, what we are seeing now is abrupt climate change; which the evidence links to the growth of the earth’s human population and activities over the past 250 years; and, most dramatically, in the last half century. What we know is that there is only a thin layer of ozone that shields the earth from the sun’s rays; and that it is being depleted by industrial emissions into the atmosphere resulting in the rise of the ocean temperature that generates the earth’s climate conditions. Just a small change in ocean temperature will affect the thermohaline conveyor leading to more harsh winter weather, reduced soil moisture and more intense winds in regions that provide the significant portion of the world’s food production, and cause a dramatic decrease in the human carrying capacity of the earth’s environment

The global warming deniers have succeeded in politicizing the issue, and they are wrong; for the true test of science is empirical evidence, not political correctness. The fact that there is a lack of consensus of opinion is inapposite. See article "The cold truth about climate change," by Joseph Romm, Salon (February 27, 2008). As Dr. Romm put it: "What matters is scientific findings - data, not opinions."
http://www.salon.com/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/


OK, nemo, explain why, while CO2 emissions are skyrocketing, temps have remained virtually flat over the last 15, 16 years.

Deniers are as bad as alarmists.

[Nemo]

What is the insuperable line?
How much evidence must there be
To prove what is plain for all to see?
Must there be unanimous consent -
Are we now ruled by sole dissent -
In the progress of time?
. . .

Global warming is no longer a question of belief or opinion, it is a fact. The evidence of global warming, and its links to human activity, has been established by research and experimentation results collected by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on over seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans; and that has definitively ruled out natural climate variations due solar activity, volcanic eruptions, photosynthesis, etc. as the cause of measurable increase in ocean temperature, which has risen 0.9F in just the past 40 years. (The same findings were made in a long-range study in Britain.) Even the Pentagon acknowledges the fact of global warming and the threat of climate change on national security interests. See Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" (October 2003). In face of the scientific evidence, which has been independently verified, to say that there is any doubt about it is no longer tenable.

[Peter1469]

How to signal that your argument is lost....

:laugh:

Thousands of scientists don't agree that the debate is over.


What is the insuperable line?
How much evidence must there be
To prove what is plain for all to see?
Must there be unanimous consent -
Are we now ruled by sole dissent -
In the progress of time?
. . .

Global warming is no longer a question of belief or opinion, it is a fact. The evidence of global warming, and its links to human activity, has been established by research and experimentation results collected by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on over seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans; and that has definitively ruled out natural climate variations due solar activity, volcanic eruptions, photosynthesis, etc. as the cause of measurable increase in ocean temperature, which has risen 0.9F in just the past 40 years. (The same findings were made in a long-range study in Britain.) Even the Pentagon acknowledges the fact of global warming and the threat of climate change on national security interests. See Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" (October 2003). In face of the scientific evidence, which has been independently verified, to say that there is any doubt about it is no longer tenable.

[Chris]

What is the insuperable line?
How much evidence must there be
To prove what is plain for all to see?
Must there be unanimous consent -
Are we now ruled by sole dissent -
In the progress of time?
. . .

Global warming is no longer a question of belief or opinion, it is a fact. The evidence of global warming, and its links to human activity, has been established by research and experimentation results collected by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on over seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans; and that has definitively ruled out natural climate variations due solar activity, volcanic eruptions, photosynthesis, etc. as the cause of measurable increase in ocean temperature, which has risen 0.9F in just the past 40 years. (The same findings were made in a long-range study in Britain.) Even the Pentagon acknowledges the fact of global warming and the threat of climate change on national security interests. See Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" (October 2003). In face of the scientific evidence, which has been independently verified, to say that there is any doubt about it is no longer tenable.



You ask interesting questions, empirical questions like Bacon would have asked. But you ignore the problem of induction introduced by Hume. You see, science and proof is a sort of Sorites Paradox. Take a grain of sand, it doesn't make a heap, adding a grain doesn't make a heap, another, still not a heap. So when does it become a heap? The induction problem was solved by Popper with falsification. Thus, unless you can account for the last decade and a half of increased CO2 but flat temps....


True, global warming is a fact, the planet warms up, from time to time, just as global cooling is a fact. You do know people have argued global warming for a decade, it's climate change, rumplestiltskin.

[Nemo]

The debate is over. I previously posted this reply in the Science, Health, and Technology Room Forum in response to the "Chasing Ice" glacial calving video:
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/22828-Watch-this-Giant-Glacier-break-off-into-the-ocean?p=543193&viewfull=1#post543193

[Peter1469]

We are likely heading back into an ice age. Russian scientists have been saying this for a while now.

[Nemo]

Ironically, that is a predictable consequence of global warming. The melting ice will change the salinity of the ocean, slowing the currents (e.g., Gulf Stream) that regulate climatic conditions to the point of collapse. Then there will be another ice age - and soon.

[Peter1469]

And man isn't going to change it. It would be nice if we could.


Ironically, that is a predictable consequence of global warming. The melting ice will change the salinity of the ocean, slowing the currents (e.g., Gulf Stream) that regulate climatic conditions to the point of collapse. Then there will be another ice age - and soon.

[Nemo]

That is correct. See Post# 52, supra. We are very likely to starve. The evidence indicates that the global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate; and it's too late at this late date to do anything about it. It’s time that we face up to the facts; or come face-to-face with the reality of global warming at the grocery store when we are fighting in the isles for the food on the shelves. Then, you see, it will be a real problem; one that we should have done something about when we had the opportunity.

[Chris]

The debate is over. I previously posted this reply in the Science, Health, and Technology Room Forum in response to the "Chasing Ice" glacial calving video:
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/22828-Watch-this-Giant-Glacier-break-off-into-the-ocean?p=543193&viewfull=1#post543193



So you give up that easy!?!?

[zelmo1234]

What is the insuperable line?
How much evidence must there be
To prove what is plain for all to see?
Must there be unanimous consent -
Are we now ruled by sole dissent -
In the progress of time?
. . .

Global warming is no longer a question of belief or opinion, it is a fact. The evidence of global warming, and its links to human activity, has been established by research and experimentation results collected by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on over seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans; and that has definitively ruled out natural climate variations due solar activity, volcanic eruptions, photosynthesis, etc. as the cause of measurable increase in ocean temperature, which has risen 0.9F in just the past 40 years. (The same findings were made in a long-range study in Britain.) Even the Pentagon acknowledges the fact of global warming and the threat of climate change on national security interests. See Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" (October 2003). In face of the scientific evidence, which has been independently verified, to say that there is any doubt about it is no longer tenable.

Yes but they based a lot of that reasearch on lies so it is time one again for some humor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

[zelmo1234]

Remember the good old days when they called it the weather?

[Chris]

And you didn't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

[Peter1469]

What arrogance. Man never did have the ability to cause any meaningful change to the climate. Well, outside of a large scale nuclear exchange.

If warming is our fate, we will have more food. Not so much if ice is our fate.

But you warmists are amusing. :smiley:


That is correct. See Post# 52, supra. We are very likely to starve. The evidence indicates that the global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate; and it's too late at this late date to do anything about it. It’s time that we face up to the facts; or come face-to-face with the reality of global warming at the grocery store when we are fighting in the isles for the food on the shelves. Then, you see, it will be a real problem; one that we should have done something about when we had the opportunity.

[Nemo]

"When will man know what birds know?"
- Carl Sandburg

The environment does have the capacity to heal itself; and the rate of recovery would depend on the type of damage being done to it. In this case, the earth can replenish the ozone depleted by man-made pollutants; however it cannot be restored while we continue to spew chemical emissions into the atmosphere. We have known about this for decades and have done nothing; and now it is too late to do anything. The ocean temperature will continue to rise, which will have inevitable consequences. Still, we refuse to acknowledge the facts, and go about oblivious to what is happening. Indeed, one would think that man had but small brains for refusing to see the cause of his own destruction.

[Peter1469]

I am in agreement about real pollution. CO2 just isn't that.

[Nemo]

The effects of global warming are everywhere about us; and yet we literally cannot see the forest for the trees. Still, sometimes it is not the big picture, but rather the little things that tell us the truth. In this, a little mentioned aspect of global warming is the decline of Antarctic krill (estimated at 80% since 1970); which is significant both for its role in regulating carbon emissions into the atmosphere and because it is at the base of the ocean food chain - not to mention a substantial commercial harvest. Krill feed on phytoplankton beneath the sea ice, and it is the melting sea ice due to rising temperature that has caused the dramatic decrease in krill populations. This, in turn, will increase of amount of carbon emissions, exacerbating global warming and its effects. It is a vicious cycle; and one that will have profound consequences. See article at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060206230630.htm

[Captain Obvious]

The effects of global warming are everywhere about us; and yet we literally cannot see the forest for the trees. Still, sometimes it is not the big picture, but rather the little things that tell us the truth. In this, a little mentioned aspect of global warming is the decline of Antarctic krill (estimated at 80% since 1970); which is significant both for its role in regulating carbon emissions into the atmosphere and because it is at the base of the ocean food chain - not to mention a substantial commercial harvest. Krill feed on phytoplankton beneath the sea ice, and it is the melting sea ice due to rising temperature that has caused the dramatic decrease in krill populations. This, in turn, will increase of amount of carbon emissions, exacerbating global warming and its effects. It is a vicious cycle; and one that will have profound consequences. See article at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060206230630.htm

If your opinion on climate change is politically driven then you're not being honest with yourself or anyone around you.

Don't waste your time getting sucked into that "debate".

[Nemo]

As I have said, repeatedly, there is no more debate. Global warming is a fact. It's happening, and it's happening now. What is really disturbing is that people are still refusing to see that it's happening.

[MrJimmyDale]

Worked just fine on the level of crap coming out tailpipes And I love paying 50k for that 15k vehicle.........(but about half of that is probably union so I shouldn't blame it all on emissions and MPG's)

[Chris]

"When will man know what birds know?"
- Carl Sandburg

The environment does have the capacity to heal itself; and the rate of recovery would depend on the type of damage being done to it. In this case, the earth can replenish the ozone depleted by man-made pollutants; however it cannot be restored while we continue to spew chemical emissions into the atmosphere. We have known about this for decades and have done nothing; and now it is too late to do anything. The ocean temperature will continue to rise, which will have inevitable consequences. Still, we refuse to acknowledge the facts, and go about oblivious to what is happening. Indeed, one would think that man had but small brains for refusing to see the cause of his own destruction.



Same can be said about free markets.

[Chris]

As I have said, repeatedly, there is no more debate. Global warming is a fact. It's happening, and it's happening now. What is really disturbing is that people are still refusing to see that it's happening.


If there's no more debate then you are not arguing science, nemo, but coercive politics.

But why bother, you're a blogger have absolutely no interest in discussion.

[Nemo]

I gave up driving several years ago. I walk mostly; and, when I need to go some place too far to walk, I call a cab; which, for me is cheaper than making car payments. And, when I go out on the town, I hire a limo.

[MrJimmyDale]

Scientists can't tell me what the weather is going to be next week......I sure am not going to put much stock on them predicting what will happen 1500 years from now. They are in it for the money. If there is no controversy then the millions of dollars being spent on both side of the argument would go somewhere else. The scientists that are debating this are self-preserving. They don't really know much more about global warming than I do. Piss on them all!!!!

[MrJimmyDale]

I gave up driving several years ago. I walk mostly; and, when I need to go some place too far to walk, I call a cab; which, for me is cheaper than making car payments. And, when I go out on the town, I hire a limo. I'll fire my lawnmower up to go to my mailbox to get the mail.........screw the ozone!!!!!

[Nemo]

Well, good for you. But not good for our planet.

[Peter1469]

As I have said, repeatedly, there is no more debate. Global warming is a fact. It's happening, and it's happening now. What is really disturbing is that people are still refusing to see that it's happening.

Just to be clear. You are referring to man-made climate change, as opposed to a natural cycle.

Now, I have before said that I could agree that man has a slight affect on climate, but that is not what this "over" debate is about. It is about catastrophic change. It is about massive transfers of wealth to solve the crisis, even though it is too late anyway..... :smiley:

If there is any consensus, it is that there is no consensus. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/)


Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies (http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full). By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.


The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims) and here (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/)) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

[Chris]

Well, good for you. But not good for our planet.

Yea, right, you don't drive--good for you! You take taxi and limos--bad for the planet.

[Nemo]

Good bye.

[MrJimmyDale]

Good bye. Good....I would rather post on one of Cigars racist threads.......at least he has a sense of humor

[Peter1469]

Good bye.

Look, the debate isn't settled, you don't have to get upset about that.