Listen, I'm not the one coming on here saying that GW will render the Earth uninhabitable... but somehow I am the stupid one???
But continue to call me names, it identifies you quite succinctly, as well.
Good news for global warming alarmists. You are being
- Thread starter gonegolfing
- Start date
But continue to call me names, it identifies you quite succinctly, as well.
One of the stupidist? No
How about..... ISIS/ISIL is contained?
Saudi Arabia
The oil giant has been one of the most reluctant parties to any climate agreement, often using its clout in the Middle East to drag others away from the negotiating table. While Saudi Arabia participated in the process in Paris, it also threw up roadblocks from time to time, trying to maintain its grip as a major source of energy for the world.
The oil giant has been one of the most reluctant parties to any climate agreement, often using its clout in the Middle East to drag others away from the negotiating table. While Saudi Arabia participated in the process in Paris, it also threw up roadblocks from time to time, trying to maintain its grip as a major source of energy for the world.
Must be nice knowing that you're on the same side as the country which effectively CREATED the Taliban and ISIL with their radical brand of Wahabbi Islam, AND is against any form of climate agreement that will affect their money train of fossil fuels used fund the same terrorists....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151212-Paris-climate-change-agreement-fossil-fuels/
You aren't stupid for what you aren't saying. You are stupid for what you are saying.
As for your silly Fox meme, no one is saying that GW will make Earth uninhabitable for all life forms or destroy the planet. But it will make life pretty miserable for most humans and impossible for many many species.
Some of us think that's worth doing something about. Those who feel differently - like you - are reliably wrong on the facts, unwilling to learn, and demonstrate an appalling moral compass.
And it will make like better for some species, too. There will be benefits of a warming world. It's not all bad.
In any case, it is impossible to stop the climate from changing. We can stop our influence, but that doesn't mean change is going to stop happening. Adopting to change is what we should be doing instead of a Quixotic quest to try and stop change.
Huh? silly Fox meme?? What in the Hell are you talking about?
This guy brought it up...
From the perspective that you'll have to alter your wristwatch, it's irrelevant (neither good nor bad).
From the perspective that the mass shifts from the poles to equatorial waters, due to the melting land ice, it's very very bad. It takes quite a lot of mass shifting around to alter the length of a day, and this is yet another indication that sea levels are rising, and are likely to continue rising so long as we continue altering CO2 levels in the atmosphere and warming the planet.
It's going to be especially bad for coastal areas within the next century or two, as billions in land along coasts will need to be abandoned as the land value becomes worthless.
Good grief.
PANIC over a fraction of a millisecond that is PREDICTED to occur a century from now.
This completely irrelevant "lengthening" is predicated on wild global warming predictions. In other words, it's pure BS.
So if I own some cheaper land a few miles inland, my prices will skyrocket! This sounds like a good long term investment.
I know it's hard for you - as it is for most conservatives - but try to imagine what he meant. Do you think he was talking about cockroaches or cyanobacteria?
Could well be, if you guess right.
If you are wealthy and planning to ride out the devastation in a well-chosen, well-designed safe zone, you should be buying land in a variety of "good bet" areas and installing the infrastructure.
If you just want to make a profit off the refugees, you should probably worry about whether the government will let you make a profit. I foresee eminent domain getting a lot of work, along with laws against profiteering.
Probably not, because you aren't really going to have a nice beach to look at, you're going to have a junkyard of washed out houses and associated garbage that used to be on the beach.
Additionally, you're looking at a multi-decade 'investment', and a gamble that your specific parcel of land will avoid either being inundated itself, or won't have lots of flotsam to constantly clean up. A better investment would be seaside land 2m or more above sea level, that you can keep dumping large boulders along the seawall to prevent long term erosion.
People in these areas will likely end up needing to 'adapt', by building new houses a meter or more higher up on cement pylons that go fairly deep down to bedrock, and turning the coastal areas into Venice-like water cities. But you'd probably need another few million to 'adapt' your already million dollar property for that.
I guess I didn't realize an associate professor made so much compared to a lobbyist at a multi-national oil corporation. Thanks for enlightening me that over 97% of scientists are just milking the system. Seems totally legit.
Absolutely. You choose to either be willfully ignorant of or to ignore the scientific consensus on man made global warming and its potential impacts on our planet simply for political purposes and your own selfish self interest, and you pooh-pooh anyone who actually knows what they are talking about on the subject rather than taking the time to educate yourself so you can make your own rational and scientifically backed judgement on the topic.
I can't speak for him but I find it helps to think I am taking part in a long, high-quality disaster flick. Or, at the very least, have excellent seats.
Short of becoming an eco-crusader or eco-terrorist, there's not a lot I can do that I'm not already doing. And I'm too old and fat to be a good eco-warrior. So I may as well try to enjoy the ride on this slow-moving train wreck.
Look, you're not going to have that with a "gradual" disaster. Sea rise is going to be a very gradual thing (if it even happens at all). Your vision would only happen if a tsunami rushed in and didn't wash back out.
You're looking at the outlying people, but I'm guessing it's because looking at the root of the problem doesn't bode well for your agenda.
Who generally pays these scientists to do their studies? The government. So, the government has all this information, and instead of doing something about it, they use it help their buddies make money. It doesn't sound like they're too worried about it. It just works as a good scare tactic to manipulate the people, like the evil Mooslims.
I wish you were right, but I can't believe that there's a giant conspiracy where the government funds every scientist in the world to provide a self-serving result to climate change studies, and they all just go along to get along. If you really believe that you're the one who is seeing what they want to see, not the vast majority of the scientific community.
What? Anybody who dares question the climate change dogma is immediate excommunicated from the scientific community.
Do you have any experience with government funding of scientific studies? Now, my experience is strictly with VA, NIH, and NSF grants, so using that as a baseline from which to work the government does not have all the information I and colleagues have collected over the years. The end result of our work are peer-reviewed journal articles which are made accessible to the public. Data used in these papers must be shared if appropriately requested.
If you're talking about something else altogether, then that's potentially different.
I'm not just talking about our government, I'm talking about government in general. Look at the dems, they're all about global warming, or so they say, but when they were given the chance to actually make some progress on the issue, they decided instead to sell us out to one of their financial backer...the insurance industry.
If they're made public, doesn't the government have access to them? Couldn't the government inquire as to how these scientists came to their facts? What good is doing the studies if nobody is going to do anything about it anyway?
This is precisely the type of general ignorance displayed by people who earn the 'denier' tag.
SLR is already happening, and has been documented for well over a century now, with clearly accelerating levels over the past 30 years.
That is a question for your politicians, not for the scientists doing the work.
We would be FAR better off as a country if politicians kept their fingers out of the core science works, and simply followed the guidance of our National Academies scientists, an entity created by Congress over a century ago to specifically provide GOOD scientific guidance on policy issues. However, today, the politicians either ignore any science that goes against the wishes of their corporate donors, or actively attempt to confound the scientific results that are inconsistent with their positions.
This is not only a 'conservatives' thing, the liberals do it, too. And it invariably leads to bad policies and loads of wasted taxpayer dollars.
Oh, our politicians are using the information, they're just using the information to make a lot of money. This doesn't raise a red flag at all for you?
You have people, being paid by an organization, using an easily manipulated method, to come up with results, which then are being used by that organization to make a lot of money. Meanwhile the organization isn't really doing anything to fix the "problem."
Last edited:
Climate Change is institutionalized just like Abortion, Terrorism, Guns, Health care, and everything else. All of those issues have an impact on our lives. The problem is, using the government as a filter simply guarantees that any progress on fixing the issues will be slower than necessary. And, the profits made, and division of the public ON the issues, will increase.
Bottom line: if you want to improve anything you care about? Don't go through government channels to fix it. And, there are always more productive alternatives. Even trying to measure the results, or the current status, through media and government standards is going to be misleading and inaccurate.
No, because when the results of accurate science and R&D are used by businessmen and entrepreneurs, we end up with cool gadgets like iPhones, GPS satellite systems and Teslas.
Our politicians SHOULD be using the information, NOT ignoring it and using hardline 'think tanks' which create white papers and non-peer reviewed fake-science to support specific political agendas, especially when they are the diametric opposite of actual scientific data.
Crazed liberals go after GMOs, when the vast majority of the fundamental science behind them shows them to be safe, and in many cases big boons for more hardy crops (ignoring what our Natl Academies' scientists recommend).
Crazed conservatives go after climate scientists, and have Congressional chairmen walk into Congress with a snowball as an alleged dispute of the proven science (ignoring what our Natl Academies' scientists recommend).
They ignore basic facts to kowtow to their voting bases, and in the process, effectively dupe their respective bases into accepting completely NON-scientific premeses. That's really the opposite of a democracy, because you cannot have a functional democracy in the face of a completely uneducated population which can be spoon-fed fake information as though it is factual.
I'm talking about the doomsday sea level rise that you people are so scared of. It's not going to be like the stupid "Day After Tomorrow" movie.
Which 'institution' is it?
Because there are THOUSANDS of different governments who have sponsored research which supports the 97-99% consensus on climate. Probably TENS of thousands of universities, public and private, which have done the same. Are all of them 'in on the global conspiracy'?
The entities which are funding the disinformation campaigns are the coal lobby, the oil lobby (including that bastion of democracy and 'moderate' Wahabbi Muslim religion - which is the effective founder of the Taliban and ISIS groups, Saudi Arabia) and any other fossil-fuel based industries.
The irony of this is astounding but falls on deaf ears every time.
There's a HUGE profit motive that is permanently attached to "Climate Change." That is institutionalized, okay? It's more profitable to keep it alive than fix it. It's kind of like modern-day medicine. It's more profitable to treat the illness than cure it. Try finding a way to make people less greedy and the planet might remain hospitable. If humans wear-out their welcome, then that is the natural order of things. Waiting for government to solve your problems will just make you wait for solutions.
Plenty of scientists are paid by the government or by public universities or publicly-funded research facilities to DO THEIR JOB - which is to DO SCIENCE.
NOT to come up with particular results that are contrary to the best evidence.
You are confusing government with fossil fuel companies and right-wing oligarchs and think tanks. The latter aren't paying people to do science and come up with the best answers, they are paying people to come up with massaged answers to aid their profit outlook.
Come on, dude. If you're given money to find an objective, then you're going to find the objective. I guess you could refuse and go back to the unemployment line.
I like the fact that you think corporations have an invested interest when they pay scientists, but the government doesn't. Always follow the money.
There's this thing that's a part of (virtually) every published scientific study called the "Methods" section.
I'm only going from the medical research side of things so perhaps things are a bit different in the world of federally funded climate science research. But, 'the government' can only access your data in a couple of circumstances: they can audit your records to make sure that you're in fact doing the research they have funded you to accomplish (e.g., make sure you're not administering some experimental drug when your protocol was clearly a behavioral non-invasive study), or look into your records in cases of malfeasance. They can't simply take your data to do with it as they please.
Again, I'm just going based on experience as a university based medical researcher with federally funded grants. I'm not completely sure how data are maintained for studies done within government agencies like the Department of Energy.
Again, which 'institution' is it?
I could link well over 1000 independent national governments, public universities, private universities and independent scientific organizations which have 'studied climate' or some aspect of climate. If there is some overarching conspiracy that they are all walking in lockstep with, who is running it and coordinating it? What is their motive?
I guess I'm just trying to understand why you wouldn't try to fix a problem in which you hired someone to solve.
