Expert climate scientists say....

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Changes need to be made. Sooner is better than later.

Why?

The total point of a denier (to use a term thrown around here often) is that the supposed effects are nowhere near the Armageddon type predictions that were made and are not coming true.

Lawrocket rightly points out that nothing predicted has come to pass

Time to look at it again

As for the 98% thingy?

A talking point. Wishful thinking at best

Nothing more than that

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Changes need to be made. Sooner is better than later.

Why?

The total point of a denier (to use a term thrown around here often) is that the supposed effects are nowhere near the Armageddon type predictions that were made and are not coming true.

Lawrocket rightly points out that nothing predicted has come to pass

Time to look at it again

As for the 98% thingy?

A talking point. Wishful thinking at best

Nothing more than that

Fair question.

1. Don't shit where you eat. We only have one planet. We should probably take care of it.

2. I don't think we are near the end. But why get closer?

3. The air? I'm breathing that stuff. I want the best I can get. The water? Drinking it. Eating fish out of it. SCUBA in it. Better is just better.

4. I'm not onboard with the scientists who say we are approaching the end. But that means I don't really trust them to predict the tipping point, either. I'm concerned that we will surpass the planet's ability to deal with our crap and not know it until it is too late. See #1.

5. Population is booming. We will go too far. We've done so much to thwart disease, malnutrition and poverty that even the weak of the herd are thriving.

6. The Rain Forest isn't expanding. The Sahara isn't shrinking. Seems like a bad trend.

7. Fossil fuels are finite. We're burning them when we need them for durable functions such as polymers. Sunlight is about as infinite as we're going to get. Shouldn't we balance our use of the two better?

8. Sometimes, I look at how we treat the planet and I feel all 'locust'. I'd like to feel a bit more 'Avatar'.

9. Soylent Green, man. Soylent Green.

[davjohns 1]

I didn't say I supported anyone's agenda. I just said we can do better and starting sooner rather than later is a good idea.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I didn't say I supported anyone's agenda. I just said we can do better and starting sooner rather than later is a good idea.

Which means what exactly

My confusion comes from you post combining AGW and polution in general

They are two totally different topic

And if my post infered support of an agenda, forgive me. That was not what I meant or the intent

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

I'm not convinced that CO2 is going to bring down the atmosphere any time soon. If that is the only thing this discussion is about, then I probably shouldn't have posted at all. I just consider the issue of AGW a subset of polution in general.

Living in Europe has hilighted to me how wasteful Americans are. We ARE burning our fossil fuels at an incredible rate. Next time you are stuck in traffic, take a look around. All running on fossil fuel. Most carrying one person. Going nowhere. Kind of poetic.

Nuclear waste is piled up at (and around) a facility in the US that never even got certified to store it. Do you know when that waste is going to be safe? Me neither. Just seems like a bad idea, doesn't it?

I DO NOT believe the end is near. But we pretend to be intelligent creatures. Can't we look forward and see that there MUST be an end? Shouldn't we act accordingly?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'm not convinced that CO2 is going to bring down the atmosphere any time soon. If that is the only thing this discussion is about, then I probably shouldn't have posted at all. I just consider the issue of AGW a subset of polution in general.

Living in Europe has hilighted to me how wasteful Americans are. We ARE burning our fossil fuels at an incredible rate. Next time you are stuck in traffic, take a look around. All running on fossil fuel. Most carrying one person. Going nowhere. Kind of poetic.

Nuclear waste is piled up at (and around) a facility in the US that never even got certified to store it. Do you know when that waste is going to be safe? Me neither. Just seems like a bad idea, doesn't it?

I DO NOT believe the end is near. But we pretend to be intelligent creatures. Can't we look forward and see that there MUST be an end? Shouldn't we act accordingly?

What is that end then? Because if we can acuratly define that, the path would be clear

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

I'm not that creative. I would think overpopulation could lead to food shortage. Loss of topsoil to erosion, desertification, loss of Rain Forest might contribute to food problems. Reduction of fossil fuels will make transport of food more problematic.

Let's face it...we're doing more to harm the planet than help it. I'm constantly amazed at how I can go somewhere that I think nobody has ever been before in the remote forest...and find beer cans.

I've read that if we had to start over; we couldn't. The ores and minerals that were within reach of men with shovels have been mined. We now need heavy equipment that had to be built from the ores that were in the surface. It means we can't start from scratch anymore. That's concerning. It means we have to be smart. We aren't always smart.

BTW...I love being a moderate. It means most everyone argues with me because I'm not far enough in their camp for their tastes. lol

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'm not that creative. I would think overpopulation could lead to food shortage. Loss of topsoil to erosion, desertification, loss of Rain Forest might contribute to food problems. Reduction of fossil fuels will make transport of food more problematic.

Let's face it...we're doing more to harm the planet than help it. I'm constantly amazed at how I can go somewhere that I think nobody has ever been before in the remote forest...and find beer cans.

I've read that if we had to start over; we couldn't. The ores and minerals that were within reach of men with shovels have been mined. We now need heavy equipment that had to be built from the ores that were in the surface. It means we can't start from scratch anymore. That's concerning. It means we have to be smart. We aren't always smart.

BTW...I love being a moderate. It means most everyone argues with me because I'm not far enough in their camp for their tastes. lol

I dont believe anyone is a "moderate"

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

I'm not that creative. I would think overpopulation could lead to food shortage. Loss of topsoil to erosion, desertification, loss of Rain Forest might contribute to food problems. Reduction of fossil fuels will make transport of food more problematic.

Let's face it...we're doing more to harm the planet than help it. I'm constantly amazed at how I can go somewhere that I think nobody has ever been before in the remote forest...and find beer cans.

I've read that if we had to start over; we couldn't. The ores and minerals that were within reach of men with shovels have been mined. We now need heavy equipment that had to be built from the ores that were in the surface. It means we can't start from scratch anymore. That's concerning. It means we have to be smart. We aren't always smart.

----------------------------------------

You make a good point and I agree with much of what you have said. It is worth noting, that we are much better stewards of our land than we have been in the past. Air is cleaner, water is cleaner, we recycle much of our metals, and plastics. Can we do better, sure.

You mentioned overpopulation. This problem has already been solved. We can see that developed populations have growth rates of near zero. The solution to overpopulation is development. Development requires cheap energy. Cheap energy means fossil fuels. We we run out? Not for hundreds of years, by that time we will have technology that we cant even imagine. In the mean time, let us ignore the chicken littles among us who manufacture crisis where there is none.

• Quote

[wmw999 2,589]

Very nice list.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is indeed a major problem that while we are certainly changing the climate, we don't yet have a full understanding of the ramifications of our actions.

The case is not closed and it is not settled.

98% of bona-fide climate scientists agree that AGW is real. Only the wilfully ignorant or those with a vested interest deny it . What remains to be determined is the details of the effect it will have on local weather patterns, ocean currents, etc.

------------------------------------------------------------

Breaking news! Looks like the new 98% looks a lot like 36%

"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."

Well would you look at that, all peer reviewed and everything!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Very nice list.

Wendy P.

It is

But most of them have nothing to do with the AWG debate

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Very nice list.

Wendy P.

It's a fantastic list and it's based on individuals freely choosing not to be dicks about how they treat the world and other people around them. Any decently raised farm kid would give you the same list even if he had never even heard of the AGW agenda.

Also - It doesn't require government laws to tell people what kind of light bulb to use. It doesn't require taxes and 'credits' to be assessed. It doesn't let asshole politicians and actors with private jets to dictate to others how they should live.

It's a great list. It's about being responsible and kind. It has NOTHING to do with the AGW religious agenda which is solely about money and power over the blindly faithful. That's the good part.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

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."

Why would engineers have any particular expertise in climate science? Why would their opinion be any more informed than, say, that of chiropractors? I am a molecular biologist and sometime paleontologist; do you care to hear my (uninformed) opinion on string theory? I suspect not. In fact, I rather suspect that engineers would tend to have a bias in favor of existing technologies that they are familiar with.

Similarly, "geoscientists" cuts a broad swath. Paleontologists can be expected to have knowledge of past climates. Geochemists and geophysicists, not so much. Amongst the paleontologists that I know, none deny that the climate is warming. All of them are aware that there have been periods in the past when temperatures have been warmer than they are today. None of them have a specific non-anthropogenic explanation for the current warming, and none of them believe things happen without any cause, as if by magic. Some of them believe that the case for anthropogenic warming is not yet iron clad, and although none of them believe that global warming will be the "end of the world", they are all aware that past warmings have led to mass extinction events. At any rate no-one believes that a significant rise in sea levels, displacing hundreds of millions of people, would be a good thing.

Anyway, even you can see that "98% of climate scientists" is not at all the same thing as "36% of engineers and geoscientists". Once again you resort to misdirection and false comparisons to support your gas and coal worshiping religion.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[brenthutch 444]

Here is the link to the study, it address all of your issues. (It has been peer reviewed after all.)

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

"This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association. "

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

It has NOTHING to do with the AGW religious agenda which is solely about money and power over the blindly faithful.

I disagree that the AGW theory is a religious agenda. It's a theory, one which a decent number of scientists think has enough validity to act on.

Unfortunately, acting on it
a. inconveniences people
b. really kinda requires concerted, organized action

Now -- we might find, if we act on it, that it was unnecessary. Tant pis, we have suffered economic problems. Or, we might find, if we act on it, that it wasn't enough. Tant pis, but it's better than it would have been with no action. Or we might do exactly the right thing (as if).

We might find, if we don't act on the theory, that it wasn't necessary. In which case we're still burning through our fossil fuel reserves and not desperate enough to be really serious about finding a replacement. Or it was necessary, in which case we're in worse shape than we could have been.

Of course, the US is likely to suffer far less than many other countries, based on our current wealth, resources, and physical location. I suppose it'd be OK for some people to say "fine, well fuck them," but I'm not among those.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[brenthutch 444]

Of course, the US is likely to suffer far less than many other countries, based on our current wealth, resources, and physical location. I suppose it'd be OK for some people to say "fine, well fuck them," but I'm not among those.

Wendy P.

[wmw999 2,589]

That is, in fact, what a lot of folks are trying to tell them. And look how well it's working in China -- they're having the same air quality issues we had 40-60 years ago.

Brazil has used gasohol for nearly 40 years to increase their gasoline; they're also heavily reliant on hydropower (of course, they have the geography for it). They're also burning the rainforest at a very fast clip, to loud protests from much of the world -- that's where the conversation is with Brazil, not in burning coal (they don't have much anyway).

It's not fair. The US is extraordinarily lucky, but we've come to expect that, and to think we deserve it. We've exploited that luck, which is good. But it doesn't make us better or more deserving.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Wendy

The point is that most of the listed items are unrelated to AWG directly

And I still agree with him


AWG has nothing to do with climate

It makes carbon, (CO2) which is one of the most plentiful gasses on the planet, taxable.

It is about money and power

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,589]

No, AGW is a theory on the planet's warming. Some governments' actions, laws, and proposals are trying to address it.

But AGW alone (and it's really becoming climate change, rather than global warming) just says that the climate is changing, that humans are impacting it disproportionately, and current thinking is that CO2 emissions are a significant part of that impact.

Cap-and-trade, carbon tax, etc. are government actions to address it. AGW is the theory.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

No, AGW is a theory on the planet's warming. Some governments' actions, laws, and proposals are trying to address it.

But AGW alone (and it's really becoming climate change, rather than global warming) just says that the climate is changing, that humans are impacting it disproportionately, and current thinking is that CO2 emissions are a significant part of that impact.

Cap-and-trade, carbon tax, etc. are government actions to address it. AGW is the theory.

Wendy P.

There is nothing to address and that is the problem

The list you commented on had many good items to address. But few of them have nothing to do with climate change

The climate is changing. By definintion that is what climate does

So the arguemnt becomes whether mans activities have a detrimental influence on that which is already changing

Predictions of dire consequenses were made over a decade ago of what terrible things would be happening to us (world wide) by now

But guess what? NONE of it has come to pass!

So, now what ever the weather does, alarmist say the cause is climate change

Too much snow?
Climate change
Too little snow?
Climate change

Too hot?
Climate change
Too cool?
Climated change

Too much rain?
climate change
Too little rain?
Climate change

Now that is a very fool proof set of rules dont you think?

And all of this "climate change" is somehow being more negative or positive (depending on how your weather was this year) affected because of man

That is a hard one to swallow

Cap n trade
Carbon tax

both equal money to governmental organizations

Power and money

Thats the game

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,589]

So you don't think that people can contribute to a deterioration in the weather? Do you think we should go back to CFC's in our air conditioners? Is it really your thought that things are now as good as they can be, or just that the government shouldn't be involved at all, and should let business take all the action that's necessary?

Climate change isn't settled science in the way that gravity is (gravitation is still a theory). Physics is also changing, with the postulation of new particles -- what was wrong with all the old particles?????

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

So you don't think that people can contribute to a deterioration in the weather? Do you think we should go back to CFC's in our air conditioners? Is it really your thought that things are now as good as they can be, or just that the government shouldn't be involved at all, and should let business take all the action that's necessary?

Climate change isn't settled science in the way that gravity is (gravitation is still a theory). Physics is also changing, with the postulation of new particles -- what was wrong with all the old particles?????

Wendy P.

No
I dont think we can

And the CFC is not a settled topic either
But that is another thread if not water under the bridge

None of other theory's are being used to gain money, control and power so that argument is really a strawman

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln