Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

I checked back on this thread to see if anyone responded to my post, but I see Vandal's posts illustrated my point better than I ever could.

http://youtu.be/T2J8zEJHIg8

Seems to be rather uninformed on this issue, but on THIS ONE he is spot on!!!

Originally Posted by takascar2

Some nice scientific analysis there, Eric the Liberal - still waiting for proof of the 97% number.....
(not holding my breath, since its psychodynamically impossible for it to be true, but I digress.....)

Here's an interesting reference:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-consensus.htm

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Seems to be rather uninformed on this issue, but on THIS ONE he is spot on!!!

Yeah, you and Stefan would get into a lot of disagreements on politics. But you both seem to be fans of Justin Bieber, lol. BTW, he does have a call in show twice a week and he claims he puts in people who disagree with his position at the top of the queue if they want to debate with him (Sundays and Wednesdays I believe). So if Vandal or you, or anyone else wants to give it a go, I'd love to hear it.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Now to be clear, my position on AGW is that I DONT KNOW if its real or not, but I am unwilling to take the word of people who
have a vested interest in Big Government Nanny State solutions - they think that how you make everything better - take people's
RIGHTS away and make them helpless before the Big Brother Government. That is LEFT's agenda - that is their motivation for
pushing the AGW idea. They do this using religious terms like "denier" (eg heretic) and using alarming phrases like "There is no more
discussion to be had - debate is no longer allowed". That right there sets off loud alarm bells. It is an anti-democratic, anti-intellectual
attitude.

How, exactly, does an ideology such as "Big Government Nanny State" translate into gaining a vested interest? Are there some sort of dividends paid out when you hit on the talking points of said ideology? That might make some tangential sense if you're a lobbyist, but I'm sure that the average scientist has enough on his or her plate already, such as, you know, working on their profession in a certain field of science. On the other hand, I can think of a few large entities who do pay out sizable dividends, and are able to do so precisely because they can emit GHGs at will...

Originally Posted by takascar2

Also, from what I've heard from more than one source, the proposed solutions (carbon taxes, etc), will do VERY little to address the
alleged magnitude of the problem. If the AGWers are correct, we would have to simply stop using all carbon within the next 10
years and even then, the feedback loops may already be running.

We cannot stop using carbon-based fuels at this time. It would shut down our economy and BILLIONS would be unemployed and would starve.

Agriculture would cease as without modern petroleum based fertilizers, we would end up loosing 75% of our crop yields.

So, even if what the AGWers say is true, their proposed solution is lame and will be ineffective. The real solution would starve billions to
death. On the other hand if AGWers are correct, billions will die anyways. So, why do something ineffective or take a cure thats at least
as bad as the disease?

When it comes to AGW mitigation, simply not making things worse is extremely important. The risks of catastrophic environmental degradation are greater at, say, an Earth 4 degrees warmer as opposed to 2 degrees. Going completely cold turkey on fossil fuels and other GHG-emitting sources isn't going to happen for the dire impracticalities you mentioned, but there is plenty of room to significantly reduce the growth of the GHGs in the atmosphere. Greatly limit the use of coal in favor of nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, and other clean(er) sources of energy. Mandate that equipment becomes more energy efficient. Stop mass deforestation. Dramatically reduce consumption of red meat. These are all things that can be practically done if the willpower is there and the right representatives are in place.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Science is about proof, you've provided NONE.

I gave you two references so far, and that's not counting the dozens, at least, of references I have posted here over the years. But, I need to get my own blog going soon.

Now to be clear, my position on AGW is that I DONT KNOW if its real or not, but I am unwilling to take the word of people who have a vested interest in Big Government Nanny State solutions - they think that how you make everything better - take people's RIGHTS away and make them helpless before the Big Brother Government. That is LEFT's agenda - that is their motivation for pushing the AGW idea. They do this using religious terms like "denier" (eg heretic) and using alarming phrases like "There is no more
discussion to be had - debate is no longer allowed". That right there sets off loud alarm bells. It is an anti-democratic, anti-intellectual attitude.

It's wise to take the word of climate scientists. I think Bronco made a good reply; scientists per se don't have a vested interest in big government solutions; they're just doing their research. Take peoples' rights away? Sounds like typical trickle-down economics rhetoric to me. Slogans of freedom. But "rights" for whom? The people who are causing the problem to keep on causing it; namely the fossil fuel company CEOs. I'm not so concerned with their "rights;" why should you be? Or is it your "right" to buy a gas guzzling car? Even if a better alternative turns up soon? I don't think a right to buy a dangerous product is mentioned in the bill of rights. The government has a responsibility to protect us from dangerous products. It's not that debate is no longer allowed; the "deniers" or AGW skeptics have no problem at all making their voices heard. It's simply that the debate is over among actual scientists.

I have seen MUCH evidence that refutes or calls into question the "A" in AGW. Maybe its all bunk, probably it isn't. Not being a climate scientist, I cannot tell who is right, so I have to analyze motives and apply an understanding of human nature to compute a probability about the veracity of AGW claims.

Your turn; provide the evidence and the source. Don't duck the issue by saying you're not a climate scientist. You can read and analyze reports.

Applying this criteria, I come up with a 50-50% split - I see alterior motives and hidden agendas on BOTH sides.

Also, from what I've heard from more than one source, the proposed solutions (carbon taxes, etc), will do VERY little to address the alleged magnitude of the problem. If the AGWers are correct, we would have to simply stop using all carbon within the next 10 years and even then, the feedback loops may already be running.

We cannot stop using carbon-based fuels at this time. It would shut down our economy and BILLIONS would be unemployed and would starve.

We can't stop immediately, that's absurd; lots of building and phasing out needs to be done. But 10 years is plenty of time. The obstacles are mostly political. IOW opposition to "left wing nanny state solutions." It's true we have already caused a lot of damage that will take decades or centuries to ameliorate or go away. So, the answer to that fact, is to go on making the situation even worse? No, the wise thing is to take precautions now, given the fact that so far global warming is proceeding even faster than predicted.

Agriculture would cease as without modern petroleum based fertilizers, we would end up loosing 75% of our crop yields.

So, even if what the AGWers say is true, their proposed solution is lame and will be ineffective. The real solution would starve billions to death. On the other hand if AGWers are correct, billions will die anyways. So, why do something ineffective or take a cure thats at least as bad as the disease?

I cannot confirm any of the facts that I mentioned above - just opining based on what AGWers say.

Well, again, it's your turn. Provide confirmation (hint: you can't).

Bronco laid out a good workable and effective solution (though I myself don't endorse nuclear power).

Originally Posted by Bronco80

How, exactly, does an ideology such as "Big Government Nanny State" translate into gaining a vested interest? Are there some sort of dividends paid out when you hit on the talking points of said ideology?

You do realize that not all vested interests are financial?
Even if they were, wind and solar companies, and the politicians that accept their contributions, absolutely have dividends to gain by being AGW alarmists.

Dramatically reduce consumption of red meat. These are all things that can be practically done if the willpower is there and the right representatives are in place.

It's all animal products, not just red meat.
As a reminder:

Originally Posted by Bronco80

The thing with me is, I do like the taste of red meat, and I'll still enjoy it on exceptional circumstances (usually, whenever it's at a party or event I go to where there aren't other options).

If you aren't willing to deny your own taste buds to help stop global warming, why would/should anyone else?
(The "aren't other options" thing is B.S. Plenty of vegans/vegetarians do just fine at social events.)

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

You do realize that not all vested interests are financial?
Even if they were, wind and solar companies, and the politicians that accept their contributions, absolutely have dividends to gain by being AGW alarmists.

And well-deserved dividends and contributions, if they are providing the energy we need in a way that preserves our climate. The fossil fuel companies and their politicians should do the same, and convert to clean green energy now.

It's all animal products, not just red meat.
As a reminder:

If you aren't willing to deny your own taste buds to help stop global warming, why would/should anyone else?
(The "aren't other options" thing is B.S. Plenty of vegans/vegetarians do just fine at social events.)

Bronco said he enjoys red meat on exceptional circumstances. So he's denying his taste buds most of the time. Don't be a moron

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And well-deserved dividends and contributions

Well at least you admit that there's a vested interest!

Bronco said he enjoys red meat on exceptional circumstances.

I've already said why I think that's a lame "exception:"

(The "aren't other options" thing is B.S. Plenty of vegans/vegetarians do just fine at social events.)

But whoops, look out, it might already be too late:

Global warming is here, human-caused and probably already dangerous — and it’s increasingly likely that the heating trend could be irreversible, a draft of a new international science report says.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/...ry-high-risks/

So what do we do now, make meat/cheese and gas-guzzing cars illegal as an emergency measure, or tell everyone to chow down and buy an SUV because it's too late anyway?

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Well at least you admit that there's a vested interest!

We all gotta make a livin'
and getting paid for what we do is not a bad thing
doing the right thing, however, is a virtue

I've already said why I think that's a lame "exception:"

But it isn't.

But whoops, look out, it might already be too late:

So what do we do now, make meat/cheese and gas-guzzing cars illegal as an emergency measure, or tell everyone to chow down and buy an SUV because it's too late anyway?

The measures recommended are already laid out; they are just being blocked by Republicans, to the extent they can block them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The measures recommended are already laid out; they are just being blocked by Republicans, to the extent they can block them.

Why make poor Bronco deny his taste buds when it's increasingly likely that the heating trend could be irreversible?
(Therein lies the danger of alarmism.)

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Are you really unaware of the fact that the Heartland Institute is not in the business of informing people? It's primary purpose is to generate propaganda for whom ever holds their purse strings.

...

Uh, know your opponent.

takascar2 is a Joneser. Just sayin'. Hint, there's a "6" missing in the handle.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We all gotta make a livin'
and getting paid for what we do is not a bad thing
doing the right thing, however, is a virtue

Want no CO2 emitting power plant? Here they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breede...reeder_reactor

Bronco is right. Sorry, Eric but beggers can't be choosers. We need power plants with enough oomph to decomission those filthy mecury spewing coal plants. Wind and Solar are nice, but won't get enough juice. Besides Cali needs some juice to desalinate sea water. Y'all are getting might dry out there.



So, now, how dry are y'all?

The measures recommended are already laid out; they are just being blocked by Republicans, to the extent they can block them.

Yeah pretty much a worthless bunch. Would they support thorium plants?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

LOL! No you didn't! snip emoticon cause Vbulltin is not happy
(Maybe Bob's "values lock" is that he sees(ie: characterizes)
a lot of stuff through a 'values lock'-POV/Metric. ditto)

I think this thread should be renamed the T4T FFT, forum flame thread. Global warming makes for heated flames.

This is all just too logical.
(BTW, you're on a roll! )

Uh, NM just landed a big lunker, IMHO of course. His troll line is kinda full.

PS: I've got a question for everybody/anybody.

Hypothetically speaking, if I'm a 'non-believer' in AGW
(or whatever the hell it's being called these days! ),
am I a "denier"?

No, you'd be catching fish though.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yeah pretty much a worthless bunch. Would they support thorium plants?

No, but I might.

Going over the nuc debate is about as pointless as going over the gun debate. I'm sure those are not the only debates not worth going over, for that matter.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Originally Posted by Bronco80

How, exactly, does an ideology such as "Big Government Nanny State" translate into gaining a vested interest? Are there some sort of dividends paid out when you hit on the talking points of said ideology?

You do realize that not all vested interests are financial?
Even if they were, wind and solar companies, and the politicians that accept their contributions, absolutely have dividends to gain by being AGW alarmists.

Sure, but that's not what I was replying to. What I stated as nonsensical was the notion that an ideology itself can constitute a vested interest.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Dramatically reduce consumption of red meat. These are all things that can be practically done if the willpower is there and the right representatives are in place.

It's all animal products, not just red meat.
As a reminder:

Originally Posted by Bronco80

The thing with me is, I do like the taste of red meat, and I'll still enjoy it on exceptional circumstances (usually, whenever it's at a party or event I go to where there aren't other options).

If you aren't willing to deny your own taste buds to help stop global warming, why would/should anyone else?
(The "aren't other options" thing is B.S. Plenty of vegans/vegetarians do just fine at social events.)

The reason I gave up red meat was for health reasons (though the environmental reasons are a nice bonus). Furthermore, I highlighted that in particular because beef is orders of magnitude worse for the environment than any other food. Yes, animal products take more a toll in general than plant products, but there is a scale to it, and there are also certain plants that take a higher toll than other plants.

But on the larger point, guilty as charged, I guess. But here's the thing: in that vein we are all guilty as charged for exacerbating global warming. Every one of us that posts on this forum is doing so with a device powered by electricity that emits a good amount of GHGs. (though, at least I can brag that living in the Northwest means a tad bit less of those emissions. ) Furthermore, one individual can't do anything statistically significant to stop the onslaught of AGW. Even if a person lives completely off the grid, there are millions to billions of others who aren't. Making personal sacrifices can be morally satisfying and righteous, but if we have any hope of making any serious dents we're going to need to collectively rally the authorities at hand that do have the power to make those serious dents.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

What I stated as nonsensical was the notion that an ideology itself can constitute a vested interest.

It's hardly nonsensical. Having a vested interest in one's ideology is what leads to all the flame wars on the forum.

Every one of us that posts on this forum is doing so with a device powered by electricity that emits a good amount of GHGs.

Already covered:

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I'll be glad to make my next avatar "nihilist moron denialist." It should save the insult-hurlers some energy, and by golly we all need to reduce our carbon footprint!

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Making personal sacrifices can be morally satisfying and righteous, but if we have any hope of making any serious dents we're going to need to collectively rally the authorities at hand that do have the power to make those serious dents.

So I guess you'd be in favor of the former:

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

So what do we do now, make meat/cheese and gas-guzzing cars illegal as an emergency measure, or tell everyone to chow down and buy an SUV because it's too late anyway?

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/48...-polar-vortex/

New study finds global warming, melting sea ice, connected to polar vortex

WASHINGTON As the world gets warmer, parts of North America, Europe and Asia could see more frequent and stronger visits of cold air, a new study says.

Researchers say that's because of shrinking ice in the seas off Russia.

Normally, sea ice keeps heat energy from escaping the ocean and entering the atmosphere. When there's less ice, more energy gets into the atmosphere and weakens the jet stream, the high-altitude river of air that usually keeps Arctic air from wandering south, said study co-author Jin-Ho Yoon of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington. So the cold air escapes instead.

That happened relatively infrequently in the 1990s, but since 2000 it has occurred nearly every year, according to a study published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications. A team of scientists from South Korea and United States found that many such cold outbreaks happened a few months after unusually low ice levels in the Barents and Kara seas, off Russia.

The study observed historical data and then conducted computer simulations. Both approaches showed the same strong link between shrinking sea ice and cold outbreaks, according to lead author Baek-Min Kim, a research scientist at the Korea Polar Research Institute. A large portion of sea ice melting is driven by man-made climate change from the burning of fossil fuels, Kim wrote in an email.

Sea ice in the Arctic usually hits its low mark in September and that's the crucial time point in terms of this study, said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. Levels reached a record low in 2012 and are slightly up this year, but only temporarily, with minimum ice extent still about 40 per cent below 1970s levels, he said.

Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, is skeptical about such connections and said he doesn't agree with Yoon's study. His research points more to the Pacific than the Arctic for changes in the jet stream and polar vortex behaviour, and he said Yoon's study puts too much stock in an unusual 2012.

But the study was praised by several other scientists who said it does more than show that sea ice melt affects worldwide weather, but demonstrates how it happens, with a specific mechanism.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

So I guess you'd be in favor of the former:

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

So what do we do now, make meat/cheese and gas-guzzing cars illegal as an emergency measure, or tell everyone to chow down and buy an SUV because it's too late anyway?

Illegal? Probably not. Placing stricter limits on the amount of land and water that can be consumed, and mandating a minimum gpm on vehicles? Probably.

I wonder if the big demonstrations this Sunday and Monday are a game-changer.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I wonder if the big demonstrations this Sunday and Monday are a game-changer.

I can answer that: no they aren't. When even decapitations cease to have a moral impact, don't expect much from people marching and chanting. We're operating in fear-mode 24/7 now. Generate some visceral anxiety, and you might get somewhere. Scare the pants off people and you definitely will. Unfortunately, a threat 20 years in the future doesn't qualify.

Originally Posted by playwrite

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/48...-polar-vortex/

Paradoxically the brutal winter of 2013-2014 was good for crops in the northeastern quadrant of the US. The closest thing to a "Year Without a Winter" (2011-2012) was horrible for crops in the same area. A snow pack protects ground moisture. If you don't like the brutal winter, then go to Florida -- except that there might not be a Florida if the ice sheets vanish.

Do you believe Obama? Is it enough?

from the Sierra Club:


BREAKING: President Obama calls on world leaders to act on climate.

Take action!

BIG NEWS: President Obama just finished speaking to the United Nations about climate change and you're going to want to see what he had to say.

In a speech at the UN Climate Summit in New York, the president announced new actions that the US will take in confronting climate change and climate impacts at home and abroad. He laid out the shared responsibilities of all nations, and committed the United States to ambitious next steps.

Tell President Obama that America is ready for him to follow through on the promises he made today.

The president called on the assembled world leaders to act, saying, "Our citizens keep marching, we cannot pretend we cannot hear them. We have to answer the call."

And he's right -- the People's Climate March drew 400,000 people to the streets of New York City before today's historic meeting of the United Nations. Those voices calling for climate justice and clean energy got the world's attention. They set the stage for President Obama's announcement today.

In his speech, the president said:
- America will meet our goals on reducing greenhouse gas emissions
- We will set ambitious reduction targets on the table for next year's UN climate meeting
- That all of the world's major economies have a responsibility to do the same

Take action now to make sure that these promises become reality. Send the president 50,000 messages by midnight so he'll know America is ready to lead.

When world leaders meet again next year in Paris, they'll remember the president's speech today and they'll remember the huge energy of the People's Climate March on Sunday. It's up to you to make sure they'll also remember that America is ready to keep its climate promises.

Michael Brune
Sierra Club Executive Director

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Paradoxically the brutal winter of 2013-2014 was good for crops in the northeastern quadrant of the US. The closest thing to a "Year Without a Winter" (2011-2012) was horrible for crops in the same area. A snow pack protects ground moisture. If you don't like the brutal winter, then go to Florida -- except that there might not be a Florida if the ice sheets vanish.

Details, details.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Paradoxically the brutal winter of 2013-2014 was good for crops in the northeastern quadrant of the US. The closest thing to a "Year Without a Winter" (2011-2012) was horrible for crops in the same area. A snow pack protects ground moisture. If you don't like the brutal winter, then go to Florida -- except that there might not be a Florida if the ice sheets vanish.

Yeah, if you go live in Florida, avoid the coastline! And be sure of the elevation; the whole place is pretty low.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Details, details.

Crop yields are details -- with huge consequences. Extreme variations in weather give no guarantee that gluts between times and places will match shortages at other times and in other places.

Crop failures can make all else irrelevant.