turtlespeed 226
The Planet is not warming as fast as predicted, the oceans are not acidifying and now, the ice is doing just fine
By
rushmc, in Speakers Corner
And one more thing...
[Reply]You decide what's most important to you and the people you care about, and act accordingly. If the short-term financial benefit of your immediate family is your top priority, your decisions might be different than if you consider the city as a whole, or some dude in Bangladesh as being important.
[Reply]You decide what's most important to you and the people you care about, and act accordingly. If the short-term financial benefit of your immediate family is your top priority, your decisions might be different than if you consider the city as a whole, or some dude in Bangladesh as being important.
Of course they will be different. If I'm busy putting a few billion people on the same par as my kids then my kids become someone else's responsibility.
Look at vaccinations. Due to some rather clever PR, vaccinations were seen to be dangerous. Parents refused to get their kids vaccinated because of the harm it would cause their kids (and with a healthy dose of hate to pharmaceutical companies). Even when evidence came out that the studies were flawed, people still believe it and refuse to vaccinate their kids. (We've had a measles outbreak here. Turns out the hotspots for anti-vax out here are in San Fran, Marin and Sonoma counties. Places known for their wealth, education and community spirit. And holier-than-thou attitude).
Their kids have gotten by on herd immunity. Basically riding along while other parents, who have the short-term interests of their kids at heart, have vaccinated their kids. Yes, short-term selfishness with their kids helped out everybody. And helped the individuals.
The heater is on in my house. I suspect this is the case in most of the US. It's on because we want/need to stay warm. Me and my kids. If I don't take the short-term interests of my kids to heart, then what? What's good for the guy in Bangladesh? He'd probably appreciate a flat with climate control.
We have heaters in our houses because nature tries to kill us. We need shelter, heat, food and clean water to live. Shelter because nature tries to kill us. Heat because nature tries to kill us. (Even AC in the summer because nature tries to kill us). We need food (and we cook it because nature tries to kill us). We need clean water because nature water tries to kill us.
We've terraformed large areas of the planet in order to give us the best chance of survival. 2014 may have been the warmest year ever, but I look at it and think, my goodness, have things ever been better? And this is coming from me who is in a drought-stricken area. We've got more people who live longer and with more food than ever. It's so good, we are dying of it being so good.
Nature doesn't kill us like it used to. Nature has been tamed to the point that people who have never experienced what nature really is want to return to it. They will fly to Costa Rica with fancy clothes, insect repellant, innoculations and water purifier. People hike, with supplies of fresh water, preserved food, medical kits, nice shoes, sunscreen, hats and cell phones in case of emergency and on established trails to keep it safe. This is not the experience of nature. It is an engineered taste of nature.
The guy in Bangladesh usually doesn't appreciate nature like we do here. He knows that nature is a brutal thing. Maybe all he wants is some steady heat and clean water.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
[Reply]aps we should hold them accountable, financially, if they are incorrect. I bet the science would get a LOT better then.
This isn't Italy. I would hope we simply hold them to their word. It's out there. We can find it easily. We simply have a really short memory.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
turtlespeed 226
lawrocket[Reply]aps we should hold them accountable, financially, if they are incorrect. I bet the science would get a LOT better then.
This isn't Italy. I would hope we simply hold them to their word. It's out there. We can find it easily. We simply have a really short memory.
Yes. Hold them to their word under financial penalty. Insure there is no cooking of the books as this is now.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
rushmc 23
He predicted 10 years to the point of no return Wendy
However that statement is looked at, it was wrong. And that gives that sharlaton the benefit of the doubt
However that statement is looked at, it was wrong. And that gives that sharlaton the benefit of the doubt
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
wmw999 2,587
If we penalize everyone for taking risks, rather than simply letting natural consequences happen, then we reduce the risk-taking, don't we. Isn't risk-taking part of what made America what it is?
It's not a risk if you're guaranteed to be right
Wendy P.
It's not a risk if you're guaranteed to be right
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)
turtlespeed 226
wmw999If we penalize everyone for taking risks, rather than simply letting natural consequences happen, then we reduce the risk-taking, don't we. Isn't risk-taking part of what made America what it is?
It's not a risk if you're guaranteed to be right
Wendy P.
Its a risk to lie - if you want to reward the liars . . . I guess whatever makes you happy.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
billvon 3,114
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>>Al Gore claimed once we have 10 years before the earth cooks
>He predicted 10 years to the point of no return Wendy
An excellent effort, not as good as your previous backpedal though.
So now let's see if you backpedal again. Can you supply the actual quote from Gore?
>However that statement is looked at, it was wrong.
Let's see the original statement, then.
>He predicted 10 years to the point of no return Wendy
An excellent effort, not as good as your previous backpedal though.
So now let's see if you backpedal again. Can you supply the actual quote from Gore?
>However that statement is looked at, it was wrong.
Let's see the original statement, then.
billvon 3,114
>Its a risk to lie - if you want to reward the liars . . . .
. . . vote republican!
===========
ThinkProgress:
The official website for House Republicans has posted on YouTube a version of President Obama’s State of the Union address which cuts out comments where the President was critical of Republican rhetoric on climate change, ThinkProgress has learned.
In the website’s “enhanced webcast” of the State of the Union speech, President Obama’s comments criticizing Republicans for saying they are “not scientists” when it comes to climate change are erased.
At the 43:25 minute mark, President Obama is supposed to say “I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what — I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.”
Instead, the entire section is skipped. Obama’s comments resume with “The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.”
=========
. . . vote republican!
===========
ThinkProgress:
The official website for House Republicans has posted on YouTube a version of President Obama’s State of the Union address which cuts out comments where the President was critical of Republican rhetoric on climate change, ThinkProgress has learned.
In the website’s “enhanced webcast” of the State of the Union speech, President Obama’s comments criticizing Republicans for saying they are “not scientists” when it comes to climate change are erased.
At the 43:25 minute mark, President Obama is supposed to say “I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what — I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.”
Instead, the entire section is skipped. Obama’s comments resume with “The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.”
=========
rushmc 23
billvon>>Al Gore claimed once we have 10 years before the earth cooks
>He predicted 10 years to the point of no return Wendy
An excellent effort, not as good as your previous backpedal though.
So now let's see if you backpedal again. Can you supply the actual quote from Gore?
>However that statement is looked at, it was wrong.
Let's see the original statement, then.
QuoteAnd politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2006-al-gore-does-sundance/
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
billvon>>Al Gore claimed once we have 10 years before the earth cooks
>He predicted 10 years to the point of no return Wendy
An excellent effort, not as good as your previous backpedal though.
So now let's see if you backpedal again. Can you supply the actual quote from Gore?
>However that statement is looked at, it was wrong.
Let's see the original statement, then.
How did I do?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc
A small step, at least - even the reps follow their own agenda:
http://www.news24.com/Green/News/US-Senate-Yes-climate-change-is-real-20150122
dudeist skydiver # 3105
SkyDekker 1,465
rushmc***>>Al Gore claimed once we have 10 years before the earth cooks
>He predicted 10 years to the point of no return Wendy
An excellent effort, not as good as your previous backpedal though.
So now let's see if you backpedal again. Can you supply the actual quote from Gore?
>However that statement is looked at, it was wrong.
Let's see the original statement, then.
QuoteAnd politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2006-al-gore-does-sundance/
He doesn't say the world will reach a point of no return in 10 years.
He says that unless we do something in the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.
rushmc 23
Quoteunless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return,
Words mean things
Regardless of your attempted twist
Which means , to Algore, the world will be unsaveable unless we take drastic action in the next 1 year and two days
WE ARE RUNNING OUT TO TIME!!!! RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
christelsabine
A small step, at least - even the reps follow their own agenda:
http://www.news24.com/Green/News/US-Senate-Yes-climate-change-is-real-20150122
Of course climate change it real
That is what the climate does
The question is whether man is influencing the change to the detriment of us all
I did not see that in the vote anywhere
You?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rehmwa 2
SkyDekkerHe doesn't say the world will reach a point of no return in 10 years.
He says that unless we do something in the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.
yeah - it's a point of no return....to a point of no return
...
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
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteRegardless of your attempted twist
It is not an attempted twist rush. He simply doesn't say that the word will reach a point of no return in 10 years, which was your claim.
Words do indeed mean something.
Can't believe I even have to add such a disclaimer: but, this doesn't mean I agree with his assertion.
rushmc 23
SkyDekkerQuoteRegardless of your attempted twist
It is not an attempted twist rush. He simply doesn't say that the word will reach a point of no return in 10 years, which was your claim.
Words do indeed mean something.
Can't believe I even have to add such a disclaimer: but, this doesn't mean I agree with his assertion.
ok how about putting it this way
He means the world will not be savable unless we put into place drastic measures
We have 1 year and 2 days left to follow his advise
Which of course will make him even richer
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,114
>How did I do?
Great! Now can you find the actual quote? You'll be able to identify it because it will either be in quotes or be a transcript.
Great! Now can you find the actual quote? You'll be able to identify it because it will either be in quotes or be a transcript.
rushmc 23
billvon>How did I do?
Great! Now can you find the actual quote? You'll be able to identify it because it will either be in quotes or be a transcript.
that was the quote from the news website
I believe it was in quotes too
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
I think we should come to some agreement on what definition of "climate change" we're talking about.
Here's how the EPA defines it:
[Quote]Climate Change
Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among others, that occur over several decades or longer.
[Url]http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html[/url]
Then there is how the IPCC defines "climate change":
[Quote]Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
[Url]http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains1.html[/url]
Notice the first definition and the first part of the IPCC definition. They refer to climate change on its face. "Climate change" means just that.
The IPCC definition, however, included the political definition of climate change from the UNFCCC: "climate change" is limited only to human influence. By terms of the UNFCCC, there is no such thing as natural climate change.
Now, the recent Senate vote as "affirmative" as far as the general definition of climate change. The villification, of course, is that the GOP has adopted a more scientific approach in considering natural changes as well as human causes.
The alarmists use the definition of climate change as only human induced. The GOP, in effect, put out there that there is a difference. In effect, deniers and alarmists don't agree because they are speaking different languages.
Another note about "science." I find the UNFCCC definition to be as anti-science as one can get. It says that alternative causation is not to be considered. Consider the scientific process: hypothesis gets tested. It makes predictions. When enough suppoeting evidence comes in that does not have an alternative explanation, it becomes a theory. That theory sticks around unless contrary evidence or a contrary theory is found.
Look at Einstein's Relativity. It's a theory. It as established when it made predictions that were tested (stars behind the sun were seen during an eclipse) and there was no other suitable explanation for it. The prediction was weird. The prediction came true. Nothing else explained it. Same with Mercury's orbit. Nothing else explained it. Therefore Relativity makes it to theory level.
Now, compare rising sea level. The claim is that science proves it it from anthropogenic effect. Question: is there any other explanation under persent knoledge that explains it? I.e. Has it happened before? Um, yes. It has. "Is there anything predicted to happen but didn't?" Yes, there is. "Are the proponents of AGW accepting the hypothesis as true despite the evidence and searching for previously unpredicted evidence or explanations to account for the missing evidence?" Oh, yes. "Are the proponents of the hypothesis attributing specific events to the general hypothesis after they occurred?" Yes. "Do the proponents consider natural events as the primary cause?" No. Because climate change is, by definition, human caused.
I am actually becoming more and more convinced that climate alarmists are anti-science because, as shown, natural events are not to be considered. Google "climate change definition" and see what pops up. Politically, natural variation does not exist - only human caused variation exists. And, of course, those who believe that natural variation is in play are considered, politically, to be "climate change deniers."
Any thoughts on this?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Here's how the EPA defines it:
[Quote]Climate Change
Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among others, that occur over several decades or longer.
[Url]http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html[/url]
Then there is how the IPCC defines "climate change":
[Quote]Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
[Url]http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains1.html[/url]
Notice the first definition and the first part of the IPCC definition. They refer to climate change on its face. "Climate change" means just that.
The IPCC definition, however, included the political definition of climate change from the UNFCCC: "climate change" is limited only to human influence. By terms of the UNFCCC, there is no such thing as natural climate change.
Now, the recent Senate vote as "affirmative" as far as the general definition of climate change. The villification, of course, is that the GOP has adopted a more scientific approach in considering natural changes as well as human causes.
The alarmists use the definition of climate change as only human induced. The GOP, in effect, put out there that there is a difference. In effect, deniers and alarmists don't agree because they are speaking different languages.
Another note about "science." I find the UNFCCC definition to be as anti-science as one can get. It says that alternative causation is not to be considered. Consider the scientific process: hypothesis gets tested. It makes predictions. When enough suppoeting evidence comes in that does not have an alternative explanation, it becomes a theory. That theory sticks around unless contrary evidence or a contrary theory is found.
Look at Einstein's Relativity. It's a theory. It as established when it made predictions that were tested (stars behind the sun were seen during an eclipse) and there was no other suitable explanation for it. The prediction was weird. The prediction came true. Nothing else explained it. Same with Mercury's orbit. Nothing else explained it. Therefore Relativity makes it to theory level.
Now, compare rising sea level. The claim is that science proves it it from anthropogenic effect. Question: is there any other explanation under persent knoledge that explains it? I.e. Has it happened before? Um, yes. It has. "Is there anything predicted to happen but didn't?" Yes, there is. "Are the proponents of AGW accepting the hypothesis as true despite the evidence and searching for previously unpredicted evidence or explanations to account for the missing evidence?" Oh, yes. "Are the proponents of the hypothesis attributing specific events to the general hypothesis after they occurred?" Yes. "Do the proponents consider natural events as the primary cause?" No. Because climate change is, by definition, human caused.
I am actually becoming more and more convinced that climate alarmists are anti-science because, as shown, natural events are not to be considered. Google "climate change definition" and see what pops up. Politically, natural variation does not exist - only human caused variation exists. And, of course, those who believe that natural variation is in play are considered, politically, to be "climate change deniers."
Any thoughts on this?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,114
>I believe it was in quotes too
================================
And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.
He sees the situation as "a true planetary emergency."
"If you accept the truth of that, then nothing else really matters that much," Gore said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We have to organize quickly to come up with a coherent and really strong response, and that's what I'm devoting myself to."
===================================
"If you accept the truth of that" is in quotes; that means it is what he said. The world will reach a point of no return is not; it's a paraphrase.
Now, can you find what he actually said?
================================
And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.
He sees the situation as "a true planetary emergency."
"If you accept the truth of that, then nothing else really matters that much," Gore said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We have to organize quickly to come up with a coherent and really strong response, and that's what I'm devoting myself to."
===================================
"If you accept the truth of that" is in quotes; that means it is what he said. The world will reach a point of no return is not; it's a paraphrase.
Now, can you find what he actually said?
Problem is that we've heard this ad nauseum for at least twenty five years. The term "tipping point" and deadlines to prevent catastrophe have beenaround since then. We've passed by most of these tipping points already. So new tipping points down the road are put out there.
Remember when we'd be out of oil by 2000? Remember when Paul Ehrlich said billions would starve to death in the world by the mid 70s (the optimists said it would be late 80s)? How many times has the apocalypse been predicted by a religious guy and passed without it happening?
If climate scientists hadn't predicted thousands of tipping points (they haven't once been right) then I'd be concerned. As it is, it seems that the best thing to do is make predictions of cataclysm that don't happen. Getting away with it removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. And more BS predictions are made.
Yes. If every other prediction of cataclysm has not panned out, I approach all predictions of cataclysm with scorn. That I don't take them seriously is the fault of the snake oil salesmen that came before.
Perhaps we should hold them accountable, financially, if they are incorrect. I bet the science would get a LOT better then.
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun