Scientists and warnings.

[LordBrownTrout]

Mudslides are now confirmation for global warming?

Yep, gramps. In order to spread their propaganda they have to ratchet up the bs.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I would find it very refreshing to hear some honesty in the Climate Change debate.

If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials and just admit that they just don't have the will to change anything in response, I could respect that.

That's odd since we have been decreasing pollutants as technology increases. Where do you see a lack of will? We could cut US emissions to zero and it would have little effect on global CO2s since China is still going full bore without the concern. There's a little honesty for you.

So you confirm that your lack of will is NOT because the science refutes the premise, but because you think corrective action in the U.S. would be too expensive and of little consequences since China will continue unabated.

Good - that is at least honest. I can appreciate that.

I am very close to agreeing with you. I don't want to see the average person - who is already spending way too much of his or her income on energy - get hit even harder.

 

[Iceweasel]

I would find it very refreshing to hear some honesty in the Climate Change debate.

If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials and just admit that they just don't have the will to change anything in response, I could respect that.

That's odd since we have been decreasing pollutants as technology increases. Where do you see a lack of will? We could cut US emissions to zero and it would have little effect on global CO2s since China is still going full bore without the concern. There's a little honesty for you.

So you confirm that your lack of will is NOT because the science refutes the premise, but because you think corrective action in the U.S. would be too expensive and of little consequences since China will continue unabated.

Good - that is at least honest. I can appreciate that.

I am very close to agreeing with you. I don't want to see the average person - who is already spending way too much of his or her income on energy - get hit even harder.

I've always been honest but I never said I had a lack of will or we shouldn't continue to improve on pollutants and alternative energies. I'd love to drive an all electric car and charge it at home. Taxing the bejesus out of citizens and dumping the cash into programs that aren't fruitful but scores big political points or paybacks isn't going to help.

 

[nodoginnafight]

That's odd since we have been decreasing pollutants as technology increases. Where do you see a lack of will? We could cut US emissions to zero and it would have little effect on global CO2s since China is still going full bore without the concern. There's a little honesty for you.

So you confirm that your lack of will is NOT because the science refutes the premise, but because you think corrective action in the U.S. would be too expensive and of little consequences since China will continue unabated.

Good - that is at least honest. I can appreciate that.

I am very close to agreeing with you. I don't want to see the average person - who is already spending way too much of his or her income on energy - get hit even harder.

I've always been honest but I never said I had a lack of will or we shouldn't continue to improve on pollutants and alternative energies. I'd love to drive an all electric car and charge it at home. Taxing the bejesus out of citizens and dumping the cash into programs that aren't fruitful but scores big political points or paybacks isn't going to help.

I may have worded myself poorly - I agree 100% with what you've said here.

 

[paulitician]

The Earth warms, the Earth cools. That's the way it is, was, and always will be. Human Beings will either adapt to changing Climate, or they won't. If they don't, they'll go the way of the Dinosaurs. But my guess is, they will adapt. 'Global Warming' has become Political and Cultish scam. The Alarmists should be ashamed of themselves. They've Fear Mongered their 'Global Warming' scam to the point of absurdity. The People are sick of it. And now that they're being called on their scam, they're becoming desperate. People always get desperate when they get called on their Bullshit.

In the end, it's your call if you want to live in fear of 'Global Warming.' I know i won't live in fear. I would recommend you just live. Us humans aren't around very long. I would advise everyone live life to the fullest. Make each day count. Don't waste your days living in fear of 'Global Warming.'

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yeah, who needs that pointy-haided book larnin' anyway

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have just seen a tragedy concerning a landslide, predicted by scientists, and ignored by all that could have done something to lessen the toll. Politically not expediant to make people uncomfortable. Until they start dieing from that sick set of mind.

Now we have the vast majority of scientists from all over the world stating that global warming is a clear and present danger, one that is already creating problems. And they will be damned by the very same kind of people that let others die for political expediancy.

These landowners knew the dangers of living on a hill that is constantly saturated.....or they should have. Landslides have been happening for millions of years. This isn't new phenomena. If I make the decision to live at the base of an active volcano and it erupts there is no one to blame. I made that decision.

 

[Freewill]

What we need do is have the government release the information concerning the alien energy source.

It would be too cheap to meter just like nuclear power.

 

[Freewill]

Geological cycles. Nothing more, nothing less. That we're this arrogant to think that we're anything greater than a pinprick is startling. I suggest reading john mcphee.

I do agree somewhat but when I read or see something on the tube about the Dust Bowl it does remind me that humans can have an effect on the environment and the weather.

But as for GW I really do wonder if 2 degrees is going to make much of a difference and I am for a 2 degree increase after this last winter. If the volcano in Yellowstone lights off then it really won't matter that much what we have done.

 

[Freewill]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have just seen a tragedy concerning a landslide, predicted by scientists, and ignored by all that could have done something to lessen the toll. Politically not expediant to make people uncomfortable. Until they start dieing from that sick set of mind.

Now we have the vast majority of scientists from all over the world stating that global warming is a clear and present danger, one that is already creating problems. And they will be damned by the very same kind of people that let others die for political expediancy.

These landowners knew the dangers of living on a hill that is constantly saturated.....or they should have. Landslides have been happening for millions of years. This isn't new phenomena. If I make the decision to live at the base of an active volcano and it erupts there is no one to blame. I made that decision.

People do amazingly stupid things when left to their own devices. Take, for example, Amb. Stevens going to Benghazi after being warned about the risk. People just think they know better and are invincible. Bad things always happen to the other guy. that is why it sometimes takes an objective outside source to protect people.

 

[Mustang]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have just seen a tragedy concerning a landslide, predicted by scientists, and ignored by all that could have done something to lessen the toll. Politically not expediant to make people uncomfortable. Until they start dieing from that sick set of mind.

Now we have the vast majority of scientists from all over the world stating that global warming is a clear and present danger, one that is already creating problems. And they will be damned by the very same kind of people that let others die for political expediancy.

The latest UN IPCC climate change report is out. According to a news article I read, this latest report (the first since 2007) states that the current state of the climate and future trends are worse than they predicted back in 2007. They always seem to find that even the high end of their predictions were too conservatives when looking back.

Speaking of conservative, look for conservatives to summarily dismiss 32-volume, 2610-page report and the 49-page summary with a few short posts with misspelled words and dismissive comments by conservative talk radio hosts who are little more than mouthpieces for conservative politicians (many from oil and coal producing states) who, because of their political power, portray themselves to be experts on every subject from social sciences like economics to hard science and everything in between.

TIME - Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews

 

[Erand7899]

I would find it very refreshing to hear some honesty in the Climate Change debate.

If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials and just admit that they just don't have the will to change anything in response, I could respect that.

Here is some honestly for you. The consensus of scientists that you loons rely on has a major qualifier, and that qualifier is the word "likely". Likely is not a scientific term, and it simply means that the scientists don't really know if climate change is real, but they suspect that it might be real.

So, if you want honesty in debate, start with your own assertion that climate change is settled science. Settled science does not include maybes?

Then, lets include some other "maybes". Scientists do not know whether climate change will be good for the population of the world, or bad for them. Nor, do they know whether, or not, we can do a damn thing to reverse the process.

Consequently, you have to pardon me for not desiring to throw our economy into the dumps in a futile effort to reverse something that we do not know is good or bad, and is only likely to occur.

What we do know, is that the earth has been generally warming since the apex of the last ice age, and will continue to warm until it decides to start the cooling process back toward the next ice age. We are going to get warmer, and the only question is, how fast will that warming take place.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Mustang - I'm not questioning the science. But what are we going to do?
The worst case scenario - if we do nothing - is that a whole lot of people are going to suffer.
The best case scenario - if we outlaw coal & fossil fuels tomorrow - is that a whole lot of people are going to suffer. And even then - considering our limited influence to curb fossil fuels around the world - we STILL wind up with the worst case scenario.

I don't dispute the science. I'm just looking for a practical solution.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I would find it very refreshing to hear some honesty in the Climate Change debate.

If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials and just admit that they just don't have the will to change anything in response, I could respect that.

Here is some honestly for you. The consensus of scientists that you loons rely on has a major qualifier, and that qualifier is the word "likely". Likely is not a scientific term, and it simply means that the scientists don't really know if climate change is real, but they suspect that it might be real.

So, if you want honesty in debate, start with your own assertion that climate change is settled science. Settled science does not include maybes?

Then, lets include some other "maybes". Scientists do not know whether climate change will be good for the population of the world, or bad for them. Nor, do they know whether, or not, we can do a damn thing to reverse the process.

Consequently, you have to pardon me for not desiring to throw our economy into the dumps in a futile effort to reverse something that we do not know is good or bad, and is only likely to occur.

What we do know, is that the earth has been generally warming since the apex of the last ice age, and will continue to warm until it decides to start the cooling process back toward the next ice age. We are going to get warmer, and the only question is, how fast will that warming take place.

Read my post above - it will outline the leaps and assumptions you incorrectly made about my position.

 

[Erand7899]

I would find it very refreshing to hear some honesty in the Climate Change debate.

If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials and just admit that they just don't have the will to change anything in response, I could respect that.

Here is some honestly for you. The consensus of scientists that you loons rely on has a major qualifier, and that qualifier is the word "likely". Likely is not a scientific term, and it simply means that the scientists don't really know if climate change is real, but they suspect that it might be real.

So, if you want honesty in debate, start with your own assertion that climate change is settled science. Settled science does not include maybes?

Then, lets include some other "maybes". Scientists do not know whether climate change will be good for the population of the world, or bad for them. Nor, do they know whether, or not, we can do a damn thing to reverse the process.

Consequently, you have to pardon me for not desiring to throw our economy into the dumps in a futile effort to reverse something that we do not know is good or bad, and is only likely to occur.

What we do know, is that the earth has been generally warming since the apex of the last ice age, and will continue to warm until it decides to start the cooling process back toward the next ice age. We are going to get warmer, and the only question is, how fast will that warming take place.

Read my post above - it will outline the leaps and assumptions you incorrectly made about my position.

Read my post and you will see that I responded to your demand for honesty in debate. The science is not settled, and the deniers are not anti-science. They are practical.

Otherwise, I have no disagreement with your argument.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Here is some honestly for you. The consensus of scientists that you loons rely on has a major qualifier, and that qualifier is the word "likely". Likely is not a scientific term, and it simply means that the scientists don't really know if climate change is real, but they suspect that it might be real.

So, if you want honesty in debate, start with your own assertion that climate change is settled science. Settled science does not include maybes?

Then, lets include some other "maybes". Scientists do not know whether climate change will be good for the population of the world, or bad for them. Nor, do they know whether, or not, we can do a damn thing to reverse the process.

Consequently, you have to pardon me for not desiring to throw our economy into the dumps in a futile effort to reverse something that we do not know is good or bad, and is only likely to occur.

What we do know, is that the earth has been generally warming since the apex of the last ice age, and will continue to warm until it decides to start the cooling process back toward the next ice age. We are going to get warmer, and the only question is, how fast will that warming take place.

Read my post above - it will outline the leaps and assumptions you incorrectly made about my position.

Read my post and you will see that I responded to your demand for honesty in debate. The science is not settled, and the deniers are not anti-science. They are practical.

Otherwise, I have no disagreement with your argument.

Ok, then show me my post where I said Climate Change is "settled science" as you claimed.
Ya know, just for HONESTY'S sake ...

 

[Meister]

Yeah, who needs that pointy-haided book larnin' anyway

Don't suppose that the clear cut logging on the site might have had a tad more to do with this slide than the "global warming" fear mongering?

 

[OKTexas]

As the number of weather extemes increases, and the toll becomes greater, what are the political repercussions going to be for those that have been telling people that nothing is happening? My prediction is that people like Senator Inhofe will make a speech in which he will damn the scientists whom he presently castigaters for perpetuating a hoax, for not giving any warning. These "Conservatives" are quite allergic to accountability.

Would the current tornado drought the US is experiencing be part of those "weather extremes"? The slide that happened in WA was a combination of weather and geology, nothing magical, in nature shit happens, more people are affected because the population is spreading into areas where few once lived.

 

[Meister]

Read my post above - it will outline the leaps and assumptions you incorrectly made about my position.

Read my post and you will see that I responded to your demand for honesty in debate. The science is not settled, and the deniers are not anti-science. They are practical.

Otherwise, I have no disagreement with your argument.

Ok, then show me my post where I said Climate Change is "settled science" as you claimed.
Ya know, just for HONESTY'S sake ...

When you stated earlier, "If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials...", one could take away that you thought the science was settled. Clarity means everything when we have to define what the word "is", is these days.

 

[Meister]

As the number of weather extemes increases, and the toll becomes greater, what are the political repercussions going to be for those that have been telling people that nothing is happening? My prediction is that people like Senator Inhofe will make a speech in which he will damn the scientists whom he presently castigaters for perpetuating a hoax, for not giving any warning. These "Conservatives" are quite allergic to accountability.

Would the current tornado drought the US is experiencing be part of those "weather extremes"? The slide that happened in WA was a combination of weather and geology, nothing magical, in nature shit happens, more people are affected because the population is spreading into areas where few once lived.

Not to mention that hurricanes have not materialized in size nor numbers as the cultists predicted.