Global Warming, RW Rhetoric & Denial

[Wry Catcher]

One of the biggest of the Big Lies consistently playing out on this message board is that Global Warming / Climate Change is not a result of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of coal and other fossil fuels.

Self described conservatives have disdain for science and refuse to see the connection between human behavior and this phenomenon based not on facts, but on the propaganda purveyed by those who fear their golden goose might be made barren by conservation.

The penalty of this anti-conservation movement is much greater than any economic consequence of change, be it adding to the deficit and the debt or costing unemployment to rise or the financial markets to suffer. Leaving our children and the children of our children a world where famine, flood, massive hurricanes and tornadoes are the norm is a legacy from which they and their posterity may never be able to fix.

Recent heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years - Yahoo! News

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bump.

 

[Katzndogz]

I'll help.

Global warming is a hoax.

Bump.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'll help.

Global warming is a hoax.

Bump.

That is very helpful. As a proud and loud member of the RW echo chamber I would expect nothing more than denial. Of course if you were a more effective troll, you might find that a city somewhere had a lower temperature today than it did on this same date in 1910'proving' your allegation that global warming is a hoax.

 

[TheOldSchool]

More troubling is the refusal to recognize any relationship between carbon and climate. What's so hard to understand about this:

But no let's not look into it. Science is stupid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters

IPCC Flat out saying what AGW is really all about

 

[TheOldSchool]

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters

IPCC Flat out saying what AGW is really all about

Oh an ultra biased site claims money is being redistributed to people who believe in AGW? Well with all those solar panel making billionaires around how can I argue that?

What will the destitute oil companies do now?

 

[martybegan]

More troubling is the refusal to recognize any relationship between carbon and climate. What's so hard to understand about this:

But no let's not look into it. Science is stupid.

Considering any temperature before 200 years ago is implied, the comparison is not as strong as you think.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If it works as the AGW Cult suggests why isn't there a single laboratory experiment that shows how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature and causes "Climate change"?

 

[TheOldSchool]

More troubling is the refusal to recognize any relationship between carbon and climate. What's so hard to understand about this:

But no let's not look into it. Science is stupid.

Considering any temperature before 200 years ago is implied, the comparison is not as strong as you think.

It should be looked into. It's not a global conspiracy, people have spotted a seeming correlation and what scientists do is experiment on correlations. We don't have observations from history about what a previous injection of man made carbon did to the climate.

We do have observations from a natural injection of carbon into the atmosphere at the end of the pleocene. What we observe is a mass extinction at the point in history that we also observe huge amounts of carbon found in the fossil record.

I don't understand why deniers would rather gamble that everything will be fine.

 

[TheOldSchool]

If it works as the AGW Cult suggests why isn't there a single laboratory experiment that shows how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature and causes "Climate change"?

If you can think of a way to do it I'm sure someone will get on it right away.

 

[martybegan]

More troubling is the refusal to recognize any relationship between carbon and climate. What's so hard to understand about this:

But no let's not look into it. Science is stupid.

Considering any temperature before 200 years ago is implied, the comparison is not as strong as you think.

It should be looked into. It's not a global conspiracy, people have spotted a seeming correlation and what scientists do is experiment on correlations. We don't have observations from history about what a previous injection of man made carbon did to the climate.

We do have observations from a natural injection of carbon into the atmosphere at the end of the pleocene. What we observe is a mass extinction at the point in history that we also observe huge amounts of carbon found in the fossil record.

I don't understand why deniers would rather gamble that everything will be fine.

Who exactly observed the natural injection of carbon into the atmosphere at the end of the pleocene? You have a time machine in your garage?

I dont deny that climate changes, I dont deny people can and may have an impact on it. What I deny is the need to collectivise and make government even more intrusive in our lives. We can adapt, we did before and we didnt have a fraction of the technology we have now.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Who exactly observed the natural injection of carbon into the atmosphere at the end of the pleocene? You have a time machine in your garage?

I dont deny that climate changes, I dont deny people can and may have an impact on it. What I deny is the need to collectivise and make government even more intrusive in our lives. We can adapt, we did before and we didnt have a fraction of the technology we have now.

Evidence from other branches of science. Population quantities were seen to drop off severely in the fossil record and carbon quantities can be observed by looking at isotopes in fossils such as that of plankton like creatures from the era.

I agree that government intrusion won't help. Invention and ingenuity will be the only way to stave off this problem and deniers would have that research halted.

 

[martybegan]

Who exactly observed the natural injection of carbon into the atmosphere at the end of the pleocene? You have a time machine in your garage?

I dont deny that climate changes, I dont deny people can and may have an impact on it. What I deny is the need to collectivise and make government even more intrusive in our lives. We can adapt, we did before and we didnt have a fraction of the technology we have now.

Evidence from other branches of science. Population quantities were seen to drop off severely in the fossil record and carbon quantities can be observed by looking at isotopes in fossils such as that of plankton like creatures from the era.

I agree that government intrusion won't help. Invention and ingenuity will be the only way to stave off this problem and deniers would have that research halted.

I dont see many AGW skeptics (lets be fair here) calling for an ending of research or funding, in particular of SOLUTIONS to the problems. What they may be against is the waste of GOVERNMENT money on more studies going over the same data over and over again.

The one thing that makes laugh with AGW supporters is that most of them detest nuclear power, the one power source that could reduce Fossil fuel use by orders of magnitude. If AGW was such a HUGE problem, wouldnt that overcome thier fear of fission?

 

[TheOldSchool]

I dont see many AGW skeptics (lets be fair here) calling for an ending of research or funding, in particular of SOLUTIONS to the problems. What they may be against is the waste of GOVERNMENT money on more studies going over the same data over and over again.

The one thing that makes laugh with AGW supporters is that most of them detest nuclear power, the one power source that could reduce Fossil fuel use by orders of magnitude. If AGW was such a HUGE problem, wouldnt that overcome thier fear of fission?

I'm all for nuclear power. I'm also for government funding of alternative energy and research on getting carbon out of the sky because, honestly, there's no money in it so no one else will pay for it.

As for skeptics and research, ask Skookerasbil or thehawk and their buddies on here if they'd support research for a solution. They'll just yell "NATURAL CYCLES" at you over and over.

 

[martybegan]

I dont see many AGW skeptics (lets be fair here) calling for an ending of research or funding, in particular of SOLUTIONS to the problems. What they may be against is the waste of GOVERNMENT money on more studies going over the same data over and over again.

The one thing that makes laugh with AGW supporters is that most of them detest nuclear power, the one power source that could reduce Fossil fuel use by orders of magnitude. If AGW was such a HUGE problem, wouldnt that overcome thier fear of fission?

I'm all for nuclear power. I'm also for government funding of alternative energy and research on getting carbon out of the sky because, honestly, there's no money in it so no one else will pay for it.

As for skeptics and research, ask Skookerasbil or thehawk and their buddies on here if they'd support research for a solution. They'll just yell "NATURAL CYCLES" at you over and over.

Then you are one of the few who do. And I can understand the pushback from the more "vocal" detractors from AGW, as most of them are fierce libertarians, and most of the solutions proposed by AGW supporters smack of authoritariansim.

There could be money in other forms of energy if material breakthroughs could be made. Government money should be spent on basic research, not propping up unstable companies like the last few solar compaines that went belly up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

More troubling is the refusal to recognize any relationship between carbon and climate. What's so hard to understand about this:

But no let's not look into it. Science is stupid.

Considering any temperature before 200 years ago is implied, the comparison is not as strong as you think.

Implied? Read my link in the OP.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I dont see many AGW skeptics (lets be fair here) calling for an ending of research or funding, in particular of SOLUTIONS to the problems. What they may be against is the waste of GOVERNMENT money on more studies going over the same data over and over again.

The one thing that makes laugh with AGW supporters is that most of them detest nuclear power, the one power source that could reduce Fossil fuel use by orders of magnitude. If AGW was such a HUGE problem, wouldnt that overcome thier fear of fission?

I'm all for nuclear power. I'm also for government funding of alternative energy and research on getting carbon out of the sky because, honestly, there's no money in it so no one else will pay for it.

As for skeptics and research, ask Skookerasbil or thehawk and their buddies on here if they'd support research for a solution. They'll just yell "NATURAL CYCLES" at you over and over.

Then you are one of the few who do. And I can understand the pushback from the more "vocal" detractors from AGW, as most of them are fierce libertarians, and most of the solutions proposed by AGW supporters smack of authoritariansim.

There could be money in other forms of energy if material breakthroughs could be made. Government money should be spent on basic research, not propping up unstable companies like the last few solar compaines that went belly up.

How many efforts were made to fly before ailerons were discovered? R&D leads to break throughs and governments around the world are funding green and renewal R&D. We were a leader until this new century, when war become the primary focus of the congress and the executive, only to be replaced by the Sky is Falling tea baggers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is the most climactic weather since the sinking of Atlantis

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, well. Another bit of news for the fatuous crusaderfrank and katzndogz to laugh off:

Canada's Arctic glaciers headed for unstoppable thaw: study - Yahoo! News