The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

[FlapJacks]

An Inconvenient Truth wasn't exactly on target, was it?

it got a lot wrong. it raised awareness, which was good. but overall, it may have done more harm than good.

And today's current AGW advocates are following in his footsteps doing even more harm

 

[the moops]

what harm we talking bout?

 

[Chaos Commish]

He's not talking about giving anything away, he's saying they should be allowed to grow golden rice instead of white rice.

If parents had the money to purchase those things don't you think they would? Rice is what they can afford.

You are mostly right. They are giving away the seed. They already grow rice. It's their staple crop. It's what their ag infrastructure is set up for. It's the only thing that makes sense. Groovus is completely missing reality.

 

[Chaos Commish]

This Patrick Moore guy thinks like I do IMO

I have a foot onboard, but not both. I think the bs has become so thick from the alarmists that the bs from the deniers stops smelling so bad but it's still bs more than anything else. Moore did get me thinking of writing my own version of his piece, but I'd rather drink beer and watch hoops than be that guy.

 

[Gr00vus]

He's not talking about giving anything away, he's saying they should be allowed to grow golden rice instead of white rice.

If parents had the money to purchase those things don't you think they would? Rice is what they can afford.

You are mostly right. They are giving away the seed. They already grow rice. It's their staple crop. It's what their ag infrastructure is set up for. It's the only thing that makes sense. Groovus is completely missing reality.

Wait, you're saying if we gave them the seed, for free, for any of those many things that have naturally occurring beta-ceratine, they couldn't grow and process it? Because I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong if you did. P.S. - moving them (whoever "they" are - where exactly are these people located?) off a food monoculture (granting your assumption that all they eat is rice) would be another benefit.

 

[Gr00vus]

He's not talking about giving anything away, he's saying they should be allowed to grow golden rice instead of white rice.

If parents had the money to purchase those things don't you think they would? Rice is what they can afford.

What part of "distributed at no cost to poor farmers around the world" am I misunderstanding?

 

[cstu]

He's not talking about giving anything away, he's saying they should be allowed to grow golden rice instead of white rice.

If parents had the money to purchase those things don't you think they would? Rice is what they can afford.

What part of "distributed at no cost to poor farmers around the world" am I misunderstanding?

I took it as the initial seed is free and then they would use the seeds they grow to use on future crops.

 

[Chaos Commish]

He's not talking about giving anything away, he's saying they should be allowed to grow golden rice instead of white rice.

If parents had the money to purchase those things don't you think they would? Rice is what they can afford.

You are mostly right. They are giving away the seed. They already grow rice. It's their staple crop. It's what their ag infrastructure is set up for. It's the only thing that makes sense. Groovus is completely missing reality.

Wait, you're saying if we gave them the seed, for free, for any of those many things that have naturally occurring beta-ceratine, they couldn't grow and process it? Because I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong if you did. P.S. - moving them (whoever "they" are - where exactly are these people located?) off a food monoculture (granting your assumption that all they eat is rice) would be another benefit.

Just stop.

 

[Gr00vus]

He's not talking about giving anything away, he's saying they should be allowed to grow golden rice instead of white rice.

If parents had the money to purchase those things don't you think they would? Rice is what they can afford.

You are mostly right. They are giving away the seed. They already grow rice. It's their staple crop. It's what their ag infrastructure is set up for. It's the only thing that makes sense. Groovus is completely missing reality.

Wait, you're saying if we gave them the seed, for free, for any of those many things that have naturally occurring beta-ceratine, they couldn't grow and process it? Because I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong if you did. P.S. - moving them (whoever "they" are - where exactly are these people located?) off a food monoculture (granting your assumption that all they eat is rice) would be another benefit.

Just stop.

Nothing you've said makes sense. It's all been appeals to emotion. Please tell me where all these blind children are, and which of those crops with naturally occurring beta-ceratine could not be grown and processed there.

 

[Gr00vus]

He's not talking about giving anything away, he's saying they should be allowed to grow golden rice instead of white rice.

If parents had the money to purchase those things don't you think they would? Rice is what they can afford.

What part of "distributed at no cost to poor farmers around the world" am I misunderstanding?

I took it as the initial seed is free and then they would use the seeds they grow to use on future crops.

Right, so they're giving the initial seed away and the farmers take it from there. So why not give them seed for crops that have naturally occurring beta-ceratine instead of genetically modified stuff?

 

[jon_mx]

This Patrick Moore guy thinks like I do IMO

I have a foot onboard, but not both. I think the bs has become so thick from the alarmists that the bs from the deniers stops smelling so bad but it's still bs more than anything else. Moore did get me thinking of writing my own version of his piece, but I'd rather drink beer and watch hoops than be that guy.

Moore overstates the case a bit, but his facts are spot on.

 

[Chaos Commish]

This Patrick Moore guy thinks like I do IMO

I have a foot onboard, but not both. I think the bs has become so thick from the alarmists that the bs from the deniers stops smelling so bad but it's still bs more than anything else. Moore did get me thinking of writing my own version of his piece, but I'd rather drink beer and watch hoops than be that guy.

Moore overstates the case a bit, but his facts are spot on.

No. They are not.

 

[cstu]

He's not talking about giving anything away, he's saying they should be allowed to grow golden rice instead of white rice.

If parents had the money to purchase those things don't you think they would? Rice is what they can afford.

What part of "distributed at no cost to poor farmers around the world" am I misunderstanding?

I took it as the initial seed is free and then they would use the seeds they grow to use on future crops.

Right, so they're giving the initial seed away and the farmers take it from there. So why not give them seed for crops that have naturally occurring beta-ceratine instead of genetically modified stuff?

Every acre that is used to plant the foods you mentioned is an acre of rice that isn't planted. In many places people are simply trying to survive and need to produce as much rice as they can in order to sell it.

 

[jon_mx]

This Patrick Moore guy thinks like I do IMO

I have a foot onboard, but not both. I think the bs has become so thick from the alarmists that the bs from the deniers stops smelling so bad but it's still bs more than anything else. Moore did get me thinking of writing my own version of his piece, but I'd rather drink beer and watch hoops than be that guy.

Moore overstates the case a bit, but his facts are spot on.

No. They are not.

He starts out with a hyperbole about the basis being that the earth will become unlivable. But his more technical points about temperature raising the last 300 years (although it has accelerated the last 100 years) and his points about CO2 concentrations are still on the very low end on a historic basis are true. There was spin in his article, but there was also much truth in it which refutes the spin that the IPCC puts out.

 

[Chaos Commish]

This Patrick Moore guy thinks like I do IMO

I have a foot onboard, but not both. I think the bs has become so thick from the alarmists that the bs from the deniers stops smelling so bad but it's still bs more than anything else. Moore did get me thinking of writing my own version of his piece, but I'd rather drink beer and watch hoops than be that guy.

Moore overstates the case a bit, but his facts are spot on.

No. They are not.

He starts out with a hyperbole about the basis being that the earth will become unlivable. But his more technical points about temperature raising the last 300 years (although it has accelerated the last 100 years) and his points about CO2 concentrations are still on the very low end on a historic basis are true. There was spin in his article, but there was also much truth in it which refutes the spin that the IPCC puts out.

Fine. That's a long way from his facts being spot on though. "Human emissions saved the planet". He's a nut. He's your kind of nut, which I prefer to the other kind of more popular nut, but he's still a nut.

 

[Tango]

This Patrick Moore guy thinks like I do IMO

I have a foot onboard, but not both. I think the bs has become so thick from the alarmists that the bs from the deniers stops smelling so bad but it's still bs more than anything else. Moore did get me thinking of writing my own version of his piece, but I'd rather drink beer and watch hoops than be that guy.

Moore overstates the case a bit, but his facts are spot on.

No. They are not.

He starts out with a hyperbole about the basis being that the earth will become unlivable. But his more technical points about temperature raising the last 300 years (although it has accelerated the last 100 years) and his points about CO2 concentrations are still on the very low end on a historic basis are true. There was spin in his article, but there was also much truth in it which refutes the spin that the IPCC puts out.

Fine. That's a long way from his facts being spot on though. "Human emissions saved the planet". He's a nut. He's your kind of nut, which I prefer to the other kind of more popular nut, but he's still a nut.

Commence name calling.

Game, set, match.

 

[jon_mx]

This Patrick Moore guy thinks like I do IMO

I have a foot onboard, but not both. I think the bs has become so thick from the alarmists that the bs from the deniers stops smelling so bad but it's still bs more than anything else. Moore did get me thinking of writing my own version of his piece, but I'd rather drink beer and watch hoops than be that guy.

Moore overstates the case a bit, but his facts are spot on.

No. They are not.

He starts out with a hyperbole about the basis being that the earth will become unlivable. But his more technical points about temperature raising the last 300 years (although it has accelerated the last 100 years) and his points about CO2 concentrations are still on the very low end on a historic basis are true. There was spin in his article, but there was also much truth in it which refutes the spin that the IPCC puts out.

Fine. That's a long way from his facts being spot on though. "Human emissions saved the planet". He's a nut. He's your kind of nut, which I prefer to the other kind of more popular nut, but he's still a nut.

Commence name calling.

Game, set, match.

The guy did make a few over the top statements which take away from his more legitimate points he made.

 

[cstu]

Fine. That's a long way from his facts being spot on though. "Human emissions saved the planet". He's a nut. He's your kind of nut, which I prefer to the other kind of more popular nut, but he's still a nut.

It's a fact that CO2 is necessary for plants and higher levels help them grow. I didn't read his statement well enough to see did say what you quoted, but it's false if he did (CO2 hasn't been below 270ppm in the past 200 years). However, current level of CO2 is not destroying the earth.

As I've said many, many times in this thread (with no rebuttal I might add) that earth is warming mostly likely due to higher CO2 but the increase is much lower than IPCC estimates due to the logarithmic effect of CO2 on global warming.

While we do need to reduce our CO2 output there's no need to panic and instead what we need is a long-term strategy to reduce it.

 

[Chaos Commish]

This Patrick Moore guy thinks like I do IMO

I have a foot onboard, but not both. I think the bs has become so thick from the alarmists that the bs from the deniers stops smelling so bad but it's still bs more than anything else. Moore did get me thinking of writing my own version of his piece, but I'd rather drink beer and watch hoops than be that guy.

Moore overstates the case a bit, but his facts are spot on.

No. They are not.

He starts out with a hyperbole about the basis being that the earth will become unlivable. But his more technical points about temperature raising the last 300 years (although it has accelerated the last 100 years) and his points about CO2 concentrations are still on the very low end on a historic basis are true. There was spin in his article, but there was also much truth in it which refutes the spin that the IPCC puts out.

Fine. That's a long way from his facts being spot on though. "Human emissions saved the planet". He's a nut. He's your kind of nut, which I prefer to the other kind of more popular nut, but he's still a nut.

Commence name calling.

Game, set, match.

The guy did make a few over the top statements which take away from his more legitimate points he made.

Tango is right. I shouldn't engage the topic. I'm not going type anything compelling. I'm just going to mock everything. Keep up the good fight.

 

[Tango]

This Patrick Moore guy thinks like I do IMO

I have a foot onboard, but not both. I think the bs has become so thick from the alarmists that the bs from the deniers stops smelling so bad but it's still bs more than anything else. Moore did get me thinking of writing my own version of his piece, but I'd rather drink beer and watch hoops than be that guy.

Moore overstates the case a bit, but his facts are spot on.

No. They are not.

He starts out with a hyperbole about the basis being that the earth will become unlivable. But his more technical points about temperature raising the last 300 years (although it has accelerated the last 100 years) and his points about CO2 concentrations are still on the very low end on a historic basis are true. There was spin in his article, but there was also much truth in it which refutes the spin that the IPCC puts out.

Fine. That's a long way from his facts being spot on though. "Human emissions saved the planet". He's a nut. He's your kind of nut, which I prefer to the other kind of more popular nut, but he's still a nut.

Commence name calling.

Game, set, match.

The guy did make a few over the top statements which take away from his more legitimate points he made.

Tango is right. I shouldn't engage the topic. I'm not going type anything compelling. I'm just going to mock everything. Keep up the good fight.

Can someone address the point if it's so obvious?

Claim: CO was at a dangerously low-level pre-industrial revolution and trending further downward.

Rebuttal: [Enter text here please]

Just curious, thanks!

 

[Mario Kart]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/arctic-sea-ice-extent-hits-record-low-for-winter-maximum

 

[cstu]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/arctic-sea-ice-extent-hits-record-low-for-winter-maximum

Record high ice levels in Antarctic.

If only global warming scientists knew the Earth has two poles.

“It’s not expected,” says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. “The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.”

 

[(HULK)]

Fine. That's a long way from his facts being spot on though. "Human emissions saved the planet". He's a nut. He's your kind of nut, which I prefer to the other kind of more popular nut, but he's still a nut.

It's a fact that CO2 is necessary for plants and higher levels help them grow. I didn't read his statement well enough to see did say what you quoted, but it's false if he did (CO2 hasn't been below 270ppm in the past 200 years). However, current level of CO2 is not destroying the earth.

As I've said many, many times in this thread (with no rebuttal I might add) that earth is warming mostly likely due to higher CO2 but the increase is much lower than IPCC estimates due to the logarithmic effect of CO2 on global warming.

While we do need to reduce our CO2 output there's no need to panic and instead what we need is a long-term strategy to reduce it.

This send perfectly reasonable to me as well.Why does this topic have to be so polarizing?

 

[cstu]

Can someone address the point if it's so obvious?

Claim: CO was at a dangerously low-level pre-industrial revolution and trending further downward.

Rebuttal: [Enter text here please]

Just curious, thanks!

CO2 was never 'dangerously low' but it was at its recent low between 1600-1800.

 

[cstu]

Fine. That's a long way from his facts being spot on though. "Human emissions saved the planet". He's a nut. He's your kind of nut, which I prefer to the other kind of more popular nut, but he's still a nut.

It's a fact that CO2 is necessary for plants and higher levels help them grow. I didn't read his statement well enough to see did say what you quoted, but it's false if he did (CO2 hasn't been below 270ppm in the past 200 years). However, current level of CO2 is not destroying the earth.

As I've said many, many times in this thread (with no rebuttal I might add) that earth is warming mostly likely due to higher CO2 but the increase is much lower than IPCC estimates due to the logarithmic effect of CO2 on global warming.

While we do need to reduce our CO2 output there's no need to panic and instead what we need is a long-term strategy to reduce it.

This send perfectly reasonable to me as well.Why does this topic have to be so polarizing?

Ideologues - people taking sides and claiming the other side is stupid and/or corrupt.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Nice... http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2015/march/global-energy-related-emissions-of-carbon-dioxide-stalled-in-2014.html

Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that global emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy sector stalled in 2014, marking the first time in 40 years in which there was a halt or reduction in emissions of the greenhouse gas that was not tied to an economic downturn.

 

[msommer]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/arctic-sea-ice-extent-hits-record-low-for-winter-maximum

Record high ice levels in Antarctic.

If only global warming scientists knew the Earth has two poles.

“It’s not expected,” says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. “The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31965454

Antarctic ice shelf thinning speeds upBy Jonathan Amos Science Correspondent

Scientists have their best view yet of the status of Antarctica's floating ice shelves and they find them to be thinning at an accelerating rate.

Fernando Paolo and colleagues used 18 years of data from European radar satellites to compile their assessment.

In the first half of that period, the total losses from these tongues of ice that jut out from the continent amounted to 25 cubic km per year.

But by the second half, this had jumped to 310 cubic km per annum.

"For the decade before 2003, ice-shelf volume for all Antarctica did not change much," said Mr Paolo from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, US.

"Since then, volume loss has been significant. The western ice shelves have been persistently thinning for two decades, and earlier gains in the eastern ice shelves ceased in the most recent decade," he told BBC News.

The satellite research is published in Science Magazine. It is a step up from previous studies, which provided only short snapshots of behaviour. Here, the team has combined the data from three successive orbiting altimeter missions operated by the European Space Agency (Esa).

Faster flowThe findings demonstrate the value of continuous, long-term, cross-calibrated time series of information.

Many of Antarctica's ice shelves are huge. The one protruding into the Ross Sea is the size of France.

They form where glacier ice running off the continent protrudes across water. At a certain point, the ice lifts off the seabed and floats.

Eventually, as these shelves continue to push outwards, their fronts will calve, forming icebergs.

If the losses to the ocean balance the gains on land though precipitation of snows, this entirely natural process contributes nothing to sea level rise. But if thinning weakens the shelves so that land ice can flow faster towards the sea, this will kick the system out of kilter. Repeat observations now show this to be the case across much of West Antarctica.

"If this thinning continues at the rates we report, some of the ice shelves in West Antarctica that we've observed will disappear by the end of this century," said Scripps co-author Helen Amanda Fricker.

"A number of these ice shelves are holding back 1m to 3m of sea level rise in the grounded ice. And that means that ultimately this ice will be delivered into the oceans and we will see global sea-level rise on that order."

Prof Fricker was speaking on this week's Science In Action programme for the BBC World Service.

Modelling capabilityVarious studies have now confirmed that the land, or grounded, ice in Antarctica is losing mass.

Esa's current polar observing spacecraft, known as Cryosat, recently reported that the continent's ice sheet was diminishing at a rate of 160 billion tonnes a year. Cryosat found the average elevation of the full ice sheet to be falling annually by almost 2cm.

It is thought that all this thinning is predominantly the consequence of warm water getting under the floating ice at the continent's margins to melt it from below.

This warmer water appears to be being drawn towards Antarctica by stronger westerly winds in the Southern Ocean.

But the precise drivers at work and their scale are poorly understood. And until scientists get a better grasp of some of these issues, their ability to project future change will be limited.

Prof David Vaughan is the director of science at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), and was not involved in the Paolo paper.

He commented: "We need three components: we need to understand the changes in the grounded ice; how the floating ice is behaving; and finally how the oceanographic conditions under the floating ice have changed. With those three things, we have the basis for building really good models. Ten years ago, we didn't have any one of those elements. Today, we've made good progress on two, but on the oceanographic side we're only just beginning."

BAS recently placed moorings in the Amundsen Sea in West Antarctica to gather data on ocean conditions. In the same sector, BAS also sent a sub under the floating shelf ahead of Pine Island Glacier to better understand how water moves under the ice.

 

[Lutherman2112]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/arctic-sea-ice-extent-hits-record-low-for-winter-maximum

Record high ice levels in Antarctic.

If only global warming scientists knew the Earth has two poles.

“It’s not expected,” says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. “The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.”

Did you get past the second paragraph?

 

[Jack White]

Here's some upcoming climate collectivist claptrap.

I, for one, will be using as much electricity as I can during that hour.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Here's some upcoming climate collectivist claptrap.

I, for one, will be using as much electricity as I can during that hour.

Whoa, Lee Harvey, you are a madman. I want to party with you, cowboy.

 

[Mario Kart]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102545816

 

[joffer]

NASA: 10,000-year-old ice shelf gone by 2020

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/us/antarctica-larsen-b-ice-shelf-to-disappear/index.html

 

[timschochet]

NASA: 10,000-year-old ice shelf gone by 2020

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/us/antarctica-larsen-b-ice-shelf-to-disappear/index.html

So NASA's part of it now?

 

[MaxThreshold]

NASA: 10,000-year-old ice shelf gone by 2020

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/us/antarctica-larsen-b-ice-shelf-to-disappear/index.html

So NASA's part of it now?

What are YOU doing to help prevent climate change? Did you swear off all forms of coal powered energy? Did you give up your car for a bike? Did you stop using toilet paper? Are you recycling like you should?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

[Jack White]

NASA: 10,000-year-old ice shelf gone by 2020

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/us/antarctica-larsen-b-ice-shelf-to-disappear/index.html

So NASA's part of it now?

What are YOU doing to help prevent climate change? Did you swear off all forms of coal powered energy? Did you give up your car for a bike? Did you stop using toilet paper? Are you recycling like you should?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

 

[MaxThreshold]

NASA: 10,000-year-old ice shelf gone by 2020

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/us/antarctica-larsen-b-ice-shelf-to-disappear/index.html

So NASA's part of it now?

What are YOU doing to help prevent climate change? Did you swear off all forms of coal powered energy? Did you give up your car for a bike? Did you stop using toilet paper? Are you recycling like you should?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

Of course! That's the entire foundation that Liberalism is built upon.

 

[Dr Oadi]

NASA: 10,000-year-old ice shelf gone by 2020

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/us/antarctica-larsen-b-ice-shelf-to-disappear/index.html

Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.Whew

 

[timschochet]

NASA: 10,000-year-old ice shelf gone by 2020

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/us/antarctica-larsen-b-ice-shelf-to-disappear/index.html

So NASA's part of it now?

What are YOU doing to help prevent climate change? Did you swear off all forms of coal powered energy? Did you give up your car for a bike? Did you stop using toilet paper? Are you recycling like you should?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Im casting my vote for Hillary Clinton. How about you?

 

[timschochet]

After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.

At least this is the only issue that Republicans have gone off the deep end on.

 

[timschochet]

After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.

At least this is the only issue that Republicans have gone off the deep end on.

No you're right about that, but it's becoming a decisive issue for me, while the others haven't been.

 

[Jack White]

After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.

You're a single-issue voter now?

And if so, you truly believe that this is the most important political issue?

And if so, you truly believe that a bunch of scumbag politicians can actually solve this issue?

 

[timschochet]

After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.

You're a single-issue voter now?

And if so, you truly believe that this is the most important political issue?

And if so, you truly believe that a bunch of scumbag politicians can actually solve this issue?

1. No. But in each election certain issues have priority for me. This is rapidly becoming one of them.

2. It could very well be. Not sure yet. The inter-related issue of alternative energy is a high priority for me too, as is immigration, as is the state of our economy. But this is certainly a biggie, perhaps the biggest.

3. It's always possible that a solution to this problem will arise from the private sector by itself without government encouragement or involvement. But I have reasonable doubt that this will be the case. It's too big; our reliance on fossil fuels is too strong, and keep in mind the government is already heavily involved with every aspect of fossil fuels, so it's not like we currently have a free economy. I think it's going to take a huge government effort to make a serious change here.

 

[Jack White]

After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.

You're a single-issue voter now?

And if so, you truly believe that this is the most important political issue?

And if so, you truly believe that a bunch of scumbag politicians can actually solve this issue?

1. No. But in each election certain issues have priority for me. This is rapidly becoming one of them.

2. It could very well be. Not sure yet. The inter-related issue of alternative energy is a high priority for me too, as is immigration, as is the state of our economy. But this is certainly a biggie, perhaps the biggest.

3. It's always possible that a solution to this problem will arise from the private sector by itself without government encouragement or involvement. But I have reasonable doubt that this will be the case. It's too big; our reliance on fossil fuels is too strong, and keep in mind the government is already heavily involved with every aspect of fossil fuels, so it's not like we currently have a free economy. I think it's going to take a huge government effort to make a serious change here.

Tim, I don't agree with that, but I appreciate your thoughtful and reasonable responses.

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102545816

We had an exceptionally cold Mother's Day...

 

[FlapJacks]

NASA: 10,000-year-old ice shelf gone by 2020

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/us/antarctica-larsen-b-ice-shelf-to-disappear/index.html

Setting my alarm to bump this in 5 years

 

[timschochet]

You're welcome. If you engaged in more back and forth dialogue instead of jumping into conversations only in order to add unrelated and irrelevant rhetoric or the same dumb line about stinky feet over and over, you'd probably get reasonable responses a lot more often.

 

[SoBeDad]

Florida governor and potential US Senator Rick Scott ordered employees not to use the terms “climate change” or “global warming”, even though Florida is the state with the most real estate within 3 feet of sea-level. Many communities such as Miami Beach, Ft. Lauderdale and St. Augustine have street flooding problems at high tides, which are getting worse. Miami Beach just spent millions on a pumping station to reduce tidal flooding on the bay-side of ritzy south beach. Mount Sinai Medical Center on Miami Beach will spend millions building a higher sea wall. Fresh water wells in Hallandale and other coastal communities have been closed due to salt-water intrusions. But yet, billions of dollars in coastal real estate is being built and bought. That's the real reason Scott is passing the problem to our children and grandchildren - he'll do anything to get good economic numbers now. This is like the deficit in reverse, politically speaking. I wonder if these melting glaciers will have an impact on tea-party mentality.

 

[Jack White]

You're welcome. If you engaged in more back and forth dialogue instead of jumping into conversations only in order to add unrelated and irrelevant rhetoric or the same dumb line about stinky feet over and over, you'd probably get reasonable responses a lot more often.

The rhetoric of liberty, peace, and voluntary mutually beneficial exchange is never irrelevant.

So while you and others argue over which level or flavor of state intervention into every conceivable corner of life you prefer, I will argue for the above.

And, it's an incontrovertible fact that every politician is a liar and a socialist and his feet stink. If you can provide any proof to the contrary, be my guest.

 

[timschochet]

You're welcome. If you engaged in more back and forth dialogue instead of jumping into conversations only in order to add unrelated and irrelevant rhetoric or the same dumb line about stinky feet over and over, you'd probably get reasonable responses a lot more often.

The rhetoric of liberty, peace, and voluntary mutually beneficial exchange is never irrelevant.So while you and others argue over which level or flavor of state intervention into every conceivable corner of life you prefer, I will argue for the above.

And, it's an incontrovertible fact that every politician is a liar and a socialist and his feet stink. If you can provide any proof to the contrary, be my guest.

Hey that's up to you. Just don't expect a lot of thoughtful responses when you post that stuff.