Gawker "journalist": Arrest climate change disbelievers! (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

The radical left loves jailing dissent. It's what its function seems to be since the early 20th century. It loves to listen in and jail, fine, arrest, etc.

Wat?

Care to give some examples of that? I suppose if you want to count Woodrow Wilson as part of the radical left, OK (but that seems a stretch 100 years later to lump him with that group). However I am not aware of many historical examples since WW2 where actions by the left have resulted in people being jailed for opposing opinions. Joseph McCarty and friends certainly weren't radical left, and while the Civil Rights marchers and Vietnam protestors arguably were for their time, they were the ones who were jailed. And while many here consider the ACLU radical left, they have been at the forefront of defending people jailed/fined/arrested, etc. for expressing dissent.

You forgot Europe, dude. I never said the "American" left. You assumed. If I miscommunicated (or, in your estimation) should have been more explicit, then I am sorry for the confusion.

Sincerely. I had the Stasi and the Communist bloc countries in mind when I wrote that post.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Can anyone here do that, based on their own knowledge of the subject? Some might think they can, but are they self-calibrating properly?

Climate science is hard. Developing any genuine expertise on the subject takes an awful lot of work.

I consider myself better informed on the subject than the average person, but I know that I'd be way out of my depth trying to form conclusions on the topic based on the science itself -- the data being collected and analyzed, and so on.

But that doesn't mean that we can't have a decent idea about which side is likely to be right. Many of the details are uncertain, but on the basic point of whether humans are causing an increase in global temperatures, there is a strong scientific consensus of the sort that has hardly ever been wrong. It is rational to believe that the consensus is very likely to be right this time as well.

But what exactly is the concensus? I think there is concsensus that man is causing at least some of the problems, and perhaps even most of the problems.

Yes, the consensus seems to be that the climate is changing, global temperatures are rising, humans are at least partially (and probably largely) responsible, and the effects are likely to be negative, on balance.

Identifying the precise expected effects, quantifying them, and figuring out how to respond -- these are more complicated questions without a strong consensus.

But what we might call the Fox News view of global warming -- that we're actually experiencing global cooling, or that if we're experiencing warming it's caused mostly by the sun, or Mars, or something other than man-made CO2 -- is pretty definitely wrong.

And yes, certain things said by Al Gore are pretty definitely wrong as well. When I encounter people who think that science-denial happens only on the right, I'm quick to point out that many on the left tend to exaggerate the projected effects of global warming. It's possible to be wrong in either direction, and of course people are.

But I also think it's pretty clear that while being wrong happens on both sides, the errors are not equal on this issue. The MSNBC view is closer to reality than the Fox News view, if only because "global warming is really scary so we have to CLEAN UP THE ENVIRONMENT AND STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS RIGHT NOW" is inherently more likely to resonate -- for reasons having nothing to do with science -- with people on the left than with people on the right.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But I also think it's pretty clear that while being wrong happens on both sides, the errors are not equal on this issue. The MSNBC view is closer to reality than the Fox News view, if only because "global warming is really scary so we have to CLEAN UP THE ENVIRONMENT AND STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS RIGHT NOW" is inherently more likely to resonate -- for reasons having nothing to do with science -- with people on the left than with people on the right.

This last point suggests that, if we're going to convince people on the right that global warming is an important problem, we need a new narrative.

I've quoted this one before:

In the 1950s, brave American scientists shunned by the climate establishment of the day discovered that the Earth was warming as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, leading to potentially devastating natural disasters that could destroy American agriculture and flood American cities. As a result, the country mobilized against the threat. Strong government action by the Bush administration outlawed the worst of these gases, and brilliant entrepreneurs were able to discover and manufacture new cleaner energy sources. As a result of these brave decisions, our emissions stabilized and are currently declining.

Unfortunately, even as we do our part, the authoritarian governments of Russia and China continue to industralize and militarize rapidly as part of their bid to challenge American supremacy. As a result, Communist China is now by far the world’s largest greenhouse gas producer, with the Russians close behind. Many analysts believe Putin secretly welcomes global warming as a way to gain access to frozen Siberian resources and weaken the more temperate United States at the same time. These countries blow off huge disgusting globs of toxic gas, which effortlessly cross American borders and disrupt the climate of the United States. Although we have asked them to stop several times, they refuse, perhaps egged on by major oil producers like Iran and Venezuela who have the most to gain by keeping the world dependent on the fossil fuels they produce and sell to prop up their dictatorships.

We need to take immediate action. While we cannot rule out the threat of military force, we should start by using our diplomatic muscle to push for firm action at top-level summits like the Kyoto Protocol. Second, we should fight back against the liberals who are trying to hold up this important work, from big government bureaucrats trying to regulate clean energy to celebrities accusing people who believe in global warming of being ‘racist’. Third, we need to continue working with American industries to set an example for the world by decreasing our own emissions in order to protect ourselves and our allies. Finally, we need to punish people and institutions who, instead of cleaning up their own carbon, try to parasitize off the rest of us and expect the federal government to do it for them.

Please join our brave men and women in uniform in pushing for an end to climate change now.

 

[FlapJacks]

Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Can anyone here do that, based on their own knowledge of the subject? Some might think they can, but are they self-calibrating properly?

Climate science is hard. Developing any genuine expertise on the subject takes an awful lot of work.

I consider myself better informed on the subject than the average person, but I know that I'd be way out of my depth trying to form conclusions on the topic based on the science itself -- the data being collected and analyzed, and so on.

But that doesn't mean that we can't have a decent idea about which side is likely to be right. Many of the details are uncertain, but on the basic point of whether humans are causing an increase in global temperatures, there is a strong scientific consensus of the sort that has hardly ever been wrong. It is rational to believe that the consensus is very likely to be right this time as well.

Hardly ever wrong, except that they failed to predict the 18 year pause....so they've already been somewhat wrong

 

[FlapJacks]

The questions we must ask start like this

1 is the earth warming?

I would guess that most would say that aside from the pause, the trend has been upward

2 how much is it warming

This is a key question and where you will see a split. The models developed needed up overstating the actual results by a wide margin.

3 is the warming catastrophic?

Here is where I'm doubtful that you will get a strong consensus

The argument that is pushed is that believing question 1 equates to believing question 3 and that is not the case

 

[NCCommish]

Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Can anyone here do that, based on their own knowledge of the subject? Some might think they can, but are they self-calibrating properly?

Climate science is hard. Developing any genuine expertise on the subject takes an awful lot of work.

I consider myself better informed on the subject than the average person, but I know that I'd be way out of my depth trying to form conclusions on the topic based on the science itself -- the data being collected and analyzed, and so on.

But that doesn't mean that we can't have a decent idea about which side is likely to be right. Many of the details are uncertain, but on the basic point of whether humans are causing an increase in global temperatures, there is a strong scientific consensus of the sort that has hardly ever been wrong. It is rational to believe that the consensus is very likely to be right this time as well.

Hardly ever wrong, except that they failed to predict the 18 year pause....so they've already been somewhat wrong

There is a slow down in temp rise but there is no real pause. And the slowdowns have been explained. The slowdown is due to long term current trends in the Atlantic and Pacific. They won't be lasting forever and when that cycle ends there is a lot of concern over how fast things will change.

 

[rockaction]

I didn't really mean to incite another global warming thread -- I have an absolutely uninformed opinion on the subject that I won't and don't share -- I was merely trying to point out the drastic mindset it takes to suggest jailing people over a nebulous negligence claim. That was sort of the impetus for the thread. I mean, carry on, but that's not at all where I was going with it.

 

[roadkill1292]

Except it is not even emblematic of the radical left. Again similar to Jim11 doing his cut-and-paste from some far right site and saying "Thanks Obama" (which oddly has a familiar ring to it after reading the OP). And I could find right wing lunatics who say crazy things and start a thread about that too, but they wouldn't be representative of what people on the radical right are saying either.

But it is emblematic of Gawker. And I'm not so sure that you're correct, either. The radical left loves jailing dissent. It's what its function seems to be since the early 20th century. It loves to listen in and jail, fine, arrest, etc.

Thanks, Gawker.

I'll bring this up at the next meeting and ask the gang to dial it back.

 

[CBusAlex]

Hardly ever wrong, except that they failed to predict the 18 year pause....so they've already been somewhat wrong

I'm going to go ahead and predict right now that whenever the next year comes around where temperatures are significantly higher than the average trend, climate change deniers will claim that warming has "paused" since that year right up until the next abnormally hot year.

I just want that on record so that no one can claim "science didn't predict this!" when it happens.

 

[jon_mx]

Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Can anyone here do that, based on their own knowledge of the subject? Some might think they can, but are they self-calibrating properly?

Climate science is hard. Developing any genuine expertise on the subject takes an awful lot of work.

I consider myself better informed on the subject than the average person, but I know that I'd be way out of my depth trying to form conclusions on the topic based on the science itself -- the data being collected and analyzed, and so on.

But that doesn't mean that we can't have a decent idea about which side is likely to be right. Many of the details are uncertain, but on the basic point of whether humans are causing an increase in global temperatures, there is a strong scientific consensus of the sort that has hardly ever been wrong. It is rational to believe that the consensus is very likely to be right this time as well.

Hardly ever wrong, except that they failed to predict the 18 year pause....so they've already been somewhat wrong

There is a slow down in temp rise but there is no real pause. And the slowdowns have been explained. The slowdown is due to long term current trends in the Atlantic and Pacific. They won't be lasting forever and when that cycle ends there is a lot of concern over how fast things will change.

If the science was truly settled, there would be no need to go back and do so much 'splaining. They want to tell is how it is going to be warming in this area, and wetter in this area, and dryer in this area...but yet they do not understand how major things like ocean currents will change and they really have no idea if additional cloud coverage is going to have a net positive or net negative impact on global temps. And that is my biggest problem, they throw out predictions and doomsday stories like they are absolute scientific fact, when in fact they don't know. They are 'best' guesses based upon a lot of worst case assumptions.

 

[rockaction]

Except it is not even emblematic of the radical left. Again similar to Jim11 doing his cut-and-paste from some far right site and saying "Thanks Obama" (which oddly has a familiar ring to it after reading the OP). And I could find right wing lunatics who say crazy things and start a thread about that too, but they wouldn't be representative of what people on the radical right are saying either.

But it is emblematic of Gawker. And I'm not so sure that you're correct, either. The radical left loves jailing dissent. It's what its function seems to be since the early 20th century. It loves to listen in and jail, fine, arrest, etc.

Thanks, Gawker.

I'll bring this up at the next meeting and ask the gang to dial it back.

If it doesn't stop, you know I'm holding you personally responsible, right?

 

[roadkill1292]

Except it is not even emblematic of the radical left. Again similar to Jim11 doing his cut-and-paste from some far right site and saying "Thanks Obama" (which oddly has a familiar ring to it after reading the OP). And I could find right wing lunatics who say crazy things and start a thread about that too, but they wouldn't be representative of what people on the radical right are saying either.

But it is emblematic of Gawker. And I'm not so sure that you're correct, either. The radical left loves jailing dissent. It's what its function seems to be since the early 20th century. It loves to listen in and jail, fine, arrest, etc.

Thanks, Gawker.

I'll bring this up at the next meeting and ask the gang to dial it back.

If it doesn't stop, you know I'm holding you personally responsible, right?

 

[jon_mx]

Hardly ever wrong, except that they failed to predict the 18 year pause....so they've already been somewhat wrong

I'm going to go ahead and predict right now that whenever the next year comes around where temperatures are significantly higher than the average trend, climate change deniers will claim that warming has "paused" since that year right up until the next abnormally hot year.

I just want that on record so that no one can claim "science didn't predict this!" when it happens.

What do you mean by 'higher than the average trend'? In recent history, the average trend is flat. Go back 18 years and the settled science was telling us the trend in 1998 proved that global temperatures were accelerating out of control.....only to have hit this current pause. We are still in a warming trend for the last 150 years or so, but the models have been wrong and the fear-mongering predictions have been grossly overstated, even if the warming trend does resume in the next years. When the science is really understood, the models will predict and not have to be explained.

 

[CBusAlex]

What do you mean by 'higher than the average trend'? In recent history, the average trend is flat. Go back 18 years and the settled science was telling us the trend in 1998 proved that global temperatures were accelerating out of control.....only to have hit this current pause.

Yes, 1998 is exactly what I'm talking about. You'll notice that no one ever talks about a "17 year pause" or a "19 year pause" because temperatures today have actually risen as compared to either 1997 or 1999. But 1998 had an usually strong El Nino, and unusually warm temperatures for the time, so deniers like to cherry pick it as the start date for this alleged pause.

If there's, like, another strong El Nino or whatever else that makes temperatures spike higher than 1998 next year, then five years after that you'll be hearing all about how "global warming stopped five years ago! Science didn't predict that!"

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Here's what the American Association for the Advancement of Science had to say in 2013:

THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk.

Surveys show that many Americans think climate change is still a topic of significant scientific disagreement. Thus, it is important and increasingly urgent for the public to know there is now a high degree of agreement among climate scientists that human-caused climate change is real. Moreover, while the public is becoming aware that climate change is increasing the likelihood of certain local disasters, many people do not yet understand that there is a small, but real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people in the United States and around the world.


It is not the purpose of this paper to explain why this disconnect between scientific knowledge and public perception has occurred. Nor are we seeking to provide yet another extensive review of the scientific evidence for climate change. Instead, we present key messages for every American about climate change:


1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field. Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4˚ F over the last 100 years. Sea level is rising, and some types of extreme events – such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events – are happening more frequently. Recent scientific findings indicate that climate change is likely responsible for the increase in the intensity of many of these events in recent years.


2. We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts. Earth’s climate is on a path to warm beyond the range of what has been experienced over the past millions of years.[ii] The range of uncertainty for the warming along the current emissions path is wide enough to encompass massively disruptive consequences to societies and ecosystems: as global temperatures rise, there is a real risk, however small, that one or more critical parts of the Earth’s climate system will experience abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes. Disturbingly, scientists do not know how much warming is required to trigger such changes to the climate system.


3. The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do.Waiting to take action will inevitably increase costs, escalate risk, and foreclose options to address the risk. The CO2 we produce accumulates in Earth’s atmosphere for decades, centuries, and longer. It is not like pollution from smog or wastes in our lakes and rivers, where levels respond quickly to the effects of targeted policies. The effects of CO2 emissions cannot be reversed from one generation to the next until there is a large- scale, cost-effective way to scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Moreover, as emissions continue and warming increases, the risk increases.


By making informed choices now, we can reduce risks for future generations and ourselves, and help communities adapt to climate change. People have responded successfully to other major environmental challenges such as acid rain and the ozone hole with benefits greater than costs, and scientists working with economists believe there are ways to manage the risks of climate change while balancing current and future economic prosperity.


As scientists, it is not our role to tell people what they should do or must believe about the rising threat of climate change. But we consider it to be our responsibility as professionals to ensure, to the best of our ability, that people understand what we know: human-caused climate change is happening, we face risks of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes, and responding now will lower the risk and cost of taking action.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It's that 2nd point that's problematic. No one knows what it would take for something catastrophic to happen, what exactly that would be, or what the chances actually are. But there's a real risk.

 

[jon_mx]

What do you mean by 'higher than the average trend'? In recent history, the average trend is flat. Go back 18 years and the settled science was telling us the trend in 1998 proved that global temperatures were accelerating out of control.....only to have hit this current pause.

Yes, 1998 is exactly what I'm talking about. You'll notice that no one ever talks about a "17 year pause" or a "19 year pause" because temperatures today have actually risen as compared to either 1997 or 1999. But 1998 had an usually strong El Nino, and unusually warm temperatures for the time, so deniers like to cherry pick it as the start date for this alleged pause.

If there's, like, another strong El Nino or whatever else that makes temperatures spike higher than 1998 next year, then five years after that you'll be hearing all about how "global warming stopped five years ago! Science didn't predict that!"

The fear-mongers cherry pick also. If there were not so many chicken littles running around pumping every spike in temperatures as a sign of impending doom just to look like fools a few year later, more people might buy into it. The hand is constantly overplayed to try to advance an agenda well beyond what good science has established.

 

[trogg78]

Put them with the Holocaust deniers.

 

[FlapJacks]

Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Can anyone here do that, based on their own knowledge of the subject? Some might think they can, but are they self-calibrating properly?

Climate science is hard. Developing any genuine expertise on the subject takes an awful lot of work.

I consider myself better informed on the subject than the average person, but I know that I'd be way out of my depth trying to form conclusions on the topic based on the science itself -- the data being collected and analyzed, and so on.

But that doesn't mean that we can't have a decent idea about which side is likely to be right. Many of the details are uncertain, but on the basic point of whether humans are causing an increase in global temperatures, there is a strong scientific consensus of the sort that has hardly ever been wrong. It is rational to believe that the consensus is very likely to be right this time as well.

Hardly ever wrong, except that they failed to predict the 18 year pause....so they've already been somewhat wrong

There is a slow down in temp rise but there is no real pause. And the slowdowns have been explained. The slowdown is due to long term current trends in the Atlantic and Pacific. They won't be lasting forever and when that cycle ends there is a lot of concern over how fast things will change.

That's about the 15th "explanation" I have seen for the pause...

 

[tommyboy]

It's that 2nd point that's problematic. No one knows what it would take for something catastrophic to happen, what exactly that would be, or what the chances actually are. But there's a real risk.

They might as well scream the sky is falling. They have no clue, just guessing. They cant even predict climate 3 months in advance.

 

[Fennis]

It's that 2nd point that's problematic. No one knows what it would take for something catastrophic to happen, what exactly that would be, or what the chances actually are. But there's a real risk.

They might as well scream the sky is falling. They have no clue, just guessing. They cant even predict climate 3 months in advance.

they are very very good predicting climate three months out. All predictions i have seen say that three months from now the US will will be hotter than now.

you can bookmark that and come back in three months.

 

[roadkill1292]

It's that 2nd point that's problematic. No one knows what it would take for something catastrophic to happen, what exactly that would be, or what the chances actually are. But there's a real risk.

They might as well scream the sky is falling. They have no clue, just guessing. They cant even predict climate 3 months in advance.

Like your election predictions with the difference being that you're still wrong a day before the actual count.

 

[NCCommish]

Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Can anyone here do that, based on their own knowledge of the subject? Some might think they can, but are they self-calibrating properly?

Climate science is hard. Developing any genuine expertise on the subject takes an awful lot of work.

I consider myself better informed on the subject than the average person, but I know that I'd be way out of my depth trying to form conclusions on the topic based on the science itself -- the data being collected and analyzed, and so on.

But that doesn't mean that we can't have a decent idea about which side is likely to be right. Many of the details are uncertain, but on the basic point of whether humans are causing an increase in global temperatures, there is a strong scientific consensus of the sort that has hardly ever been wrong. It is rational to believe that the consensus is very likely to be right this time as well.

Hardly ever wrong, except that they failed to predict the 18 year pause....so they've already been somewhat wrong

There is a slow down in temp rise but there is no real pause. And the slowdowns have been explained. The slowdown is due to long term current trends in the Atlantic and Pacific. They won't be lasting forever and when that cycle ends there is a lot of concern over how fast things will change.

That's about the 15th "explanation" I have seen for the pause...

Well not sure what you have seen but that is based on a study of over a hundred years of temp data.

 

[NCCommish]

BTW I am sorry I got dragged in to a climate change argument. People believe what they want no matter. Like the folks who still thought smoking was fine for you because a guy paid by cigarette companies told them it was. In the end all the head burying and denial won't stop it. We will either or act or we won't. And really if we acted and got off fossil fuels that would be a win for our economy, our security and the air we breath. Whether or not you believe man causes climate change almost everything we can do to mitigate it leaves a better place for your kids to live.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

That's about the 15th "explanation" I have seen for the pause...

You should probably stop reading the other 14 sources.

 

[tommyboy]

It's that 2nd point that's problematic. No one knows what it would take for something catastrophic to happen, what exactly that would be, or what the chances actually are. But there's a real risk.

They might as well scream the sky is falling. They have no clue, just guessing. They cant even predict climate 3 months in advance.

they are very very good predicting climate three months out. All predictions i have seen say that three months from now the US will will be hotter than now.

you can bookmark that and come back in three months.

funny.

I'm just stating facts, lets just use Oregon 2014/15 as an example:

this is from the 22nd Annual Climate Forum held every fall:

Rod Hill, a KGW meteorologist started his presentation off with a little truth-telling when it comes to long-range forecasts: “We just don’t know,’’ he said, garnering a big laugh.

“We’re doing well if we can tell you it’s going to be a little bit warmer than normal, or cooler than normal,” he said, "and keep in mind that’s stretched over four or five months — we’re not dealing with next week.”

the entire story is here http://www.oregonlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2014/10/hundreds_pack_omsi_auditorium.html

if you read that link you'll find several "winter" Oregon predictions, only one of which was mostly right. These aren't people off the street, these are major climatologists from Oregon.

not one of them predicted the drought we are going to experience this summer with winter snowpack at 80% below normal.

 

[NCCommish]

It's that 2nd point that's problematic. No one knows what it would take for something catastrophic to happen, what exactly that would be, or what the chances actually are. But there's a real risk.

They might as well scream the sky is falling. They have no clue, just guessing. They cant even predict climate 3 months in advance.

they are very very good predicting climate three months out. All predictions i have seen say that three months from now the US will will be hotter than now.

you can bookmark that and come back in three months.

funny.

I'm just stating facts, lets just use Oregon 2014/15 as an example:

this is from the 22nd Annual Climate Forum held every fall:

Rod Hill, a KGW meteorologist started his presentation off with a little truth-telling when it comes to long-range forecasts: “We just don’t know,’’ he said, garnering a big laugh.

“We’re doing well if we can tell you it’s going to be a little bit warmer than normal, or cooler than normal,” he said, "and keep in mind that’s stretched over four or five months — we’re not dealing with next week.”

the entire story is here http://www.oregonlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2014/10/hundreds_pack_omsi_auditorium.html

if you read that link you'll find several "winter" Oregon predictions, only one of which was mostly right. These aren't people off the street, these are major climatologists from Oregon.

not one of them predicted the drought we are going to experience this summer with winter snowpack at 80% below normal.

Weather isn't climate

 

[Clifford]

We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people's deaths

-Gawker

What laws?

 

[tommyboy]

BTW I am sorry I got dragged in to a climate change argument. People believe what they want no matter. Like the folks who still thought smoking was fine for you because a guy paid by cigarette companies told them it was. In the end all the head burying and denial won't stop it. We will either or act or we won't. And really if we acted and got off fossil fuels that would be a win for our economy, our security and the air we breath. Whether or not you believe man causes climate change almost everything we can do to mitigate it leaves a better place for your kids to live.

I agree with this, even if I don't believe 95% of what the climate alarmists spout from day to day.

its in our interests to develop clean energy not tied to Petroleum, and we should take care of the environment and leave it better for our kids. Unfortunately there's even tons of disagreement on how best to accomplish that.

 

[jon_mx]

BTW I am sorry I got dragged in to a climate change argument. People believe what they want no matter. Like the folks who still thought smoking was fine for you because a guy paid by cigarette companies told them it was. In the end all the head burying and denial won't stop it. We will either or act or we won't. And really if we acted and got off fossil fuels that would be a win for our economy, our security and the air we breath. Whether or not you believe man causes climate change almost everything we can do to mitigate it leaves a better place for your kids to live.

I agree with this, even if I don't believe 95% of what the climate alarmists spout from day to day.

its in our interests to develop clean energy not tied to Petroleum, and we should take care of the environment and leave it better for our kids. Unfortunately there's even tons of disagreement on how best to accomplish that.

Except the analogy is just horrible. In reality, that is pretty much what we are doing is getting more efficient and increasing the use of green energy. The only problem is the world's progress in this area is entirely offset by China's increasing greenhouse emissions.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There is a slow down in temp rise but there is no real pause. And the slowdowns have been explained. The slowdown is due to long term current trends in the Atlantic and Pacific. They won't be lasting forever and when that cycle ends there is a lot of concern over how fast things will change.

That's about the 15th "explanation" I have seen for the pause...

Here's a pretty good treatment of the subject if you have the time for a 14-minute YouTube video.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

BTW I am sorry I got dragged in to a climate change argument. People believe what they want no matter. Like the folks who still thought smoking was fine for you because a guy paid by cigarette companies told them it was. In the end all the head burying and denial won't stop it. We will either or act or we won't. And really if we acted and got off fossil fuels that would be a win for our economy, our security and the air we breath. Whether or not you believe man causes climate change almost everything we can do to mitigate it leaves a better place for your kids to live.

I agree with this, even if I don't believe 95% of what the climate alarmists spout from day to day.

its in our interests to develop clean energy not tied to Petroleum, and we should take care of the environment and leave it better for our kids. Unfortunately there's even tons of disagreement on how best to accomplish that.

Except the analogy is just horrible. In reality, that is pretty much what we are doing is getting more efficient and increasing the use of green energy. The only problem is the world's progress in this area is entirely offset by China's increasing greenhouse emissions.

Right, but only because it is readily available and alternatives are economically viable. But that is not an excuse to develop alternate energy technologies.