CDZ Those who believe in man made global warming...what will you actually do?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

OK so we need to stop using fossil fuels but the wackos on the left refuse to even consider nuclear power for reliable abundant emission free power

We don't need to stop using fossil fuels.....they want us to stop using them because in order to use solar and wind, would require a drastic surrendering of our economies and freedoms to central planners in the government.....that is why they want us to get rid of fossil fuels....also, it would mean they can impose strict birth control regimes in the 3rd world.....to keep them from using the fossil fuels they need to advance their countries developments.......

Fossil fuels are a finite resource so we will have to stop using them eventually

Considering that they are continually generated by the earth itself that is not entirely true.

We will, eventually, essentially stop using fossil fuels at some point but it is not going to be because they have run out but because we will discover a better source (or more likely sources) of energy.

We have already discovered better sources of energy. They are solar, wind, geothermal, and water. On the horizon is hydrogen fusion. Let's take better care of our planetary gifts rather than destroy them.

Solar does not work all of the time. Wind does not work all of the time. Geothermal only works where it is found. Water is limited by the geography.

Next!

 

[flacaltenn]

Does the vast action of humanity have an effect on the atmosphere? That is hardly a reasonable question; of course it does. Is that the important thing? Do we need to 'save the planet'? Is it important to be thinking about generations in the future? No, not really. What is important is the here and now, us. And the gigantic volume of pollution is hideous, poisonous and disgusting, right now. That is reason enough to adopt reasonable measures. What is so surprising is the vehement resistance to having a more beautiful environment and healthy conditions now. Addiction to excess is always a sickness.

I totally on board with lessening "pollution" of the atmosphere. However CO2 is not a pollutant. The EPA is wrong. Anything that exists in your lungs at 20X times the concentration of the atmos is NOT a pollutant. And THIS is part of the problem in "selling" and actually OVERselling a GW catastrophe. They are exaggerating, making folklore out of science and IGNORING the actual questions that need to be asked.

You can not FORM an opinion on GWarming by just asking the questions "is the Earth warming" and "does man play a role". Because the BASIC science of GW says that the power of CO2 to warm the atmos is about 1degC per doubling of concentration. We have YET to hit the first doubling since the beginning of the Industrial Age. And the NEXT doubling will take TWICE as much CO2 to get the next 1degC as it did the last 1degC.

So the REAL GW questions center around the UNSETTLED parts of the issue. And those have to do with postulates about "runaway accelerated warmings" and "positive feedbacks".. And there is simply no empirical evidence in the modern age for ANY of that. THAT'S how this issue got elevated to political policy/ social crisis proportions. And the discussion, media coverage, and debate has NOT been open and honest.

Which should be a siren alarm for anyone practicing science when they see how much is speculation and hype and actual misrepresentation versus what the science actually says.

 

[flacaltenn]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

There is not a 90% consensus.....

Well, we are flooded with propaganda like your linked video. Google will give you tons of this on both sides of the issue. This is how propaganda divides people. What we have to do is look at the source and its credibility. Scientific publications should be considered trusted sources.

Here is an article that quotes the science directly and its source.

And Scientific American offers How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming.

It's no wonder citizens are confused.

Nope.. I'm not confused. Having spent YEARS of studying this issue, I can tell you straight up that SkepticalScience is a TARPIT of smelly propaganda pushed by Cook and his buddy who have not made their careers science. (one of them is actually a cartoonist). I've hardly ever seen a chart or graph come from that site that hasn't been altered, crayoned in, or abused in some fashion from the original journal sources.

And their "poll of climate scientists" was NOT a poll. It was an examination of Journal papers for "opinion". Now you should realize that top notch scientific journal paper writers do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to avoid giving "opinion". So 1st off --- journal papers are NOT an OPINION POLL.. And besides Cook and Nuticelli screwed with the methodology of that poll that same way they screw with charts and data on their Bullshit site.

Finally -- they did not ask the right questions.. They only asked the SIMPLEST questions to which even I as a SKEPTIC would probably concur.

Here's the bottom line. You can not have a CONSENSUS unless you ask the best questions. And unless you know what question these idiots asked --- you can NOT claim a 97% consensus that the world is jeopardy from GW.

Even if their methodology was not SERIOUSLY flawed. So what would be a BETTER poll of climate scientists? One that even Scientific American REFUSES to mention? There's a renown Climate Scientist by the name Hans von Storch who teamed with a polling scientist and did a multi- year survey of hundreds of top scientists every 3 to 5 years for the past 15 years or so. And these folks asked not just one or two silly ass meaningless questions, but up to SEVENTY CRITICAL questions on GW in every version. The polls can be found under Bray and van Storch on the I-net. Sometimes paywalled, sometimes not. I can provide. And the RESULTS on key questions such as "HOW GOOD IS THE MODELING" that all the doom and gloom is based on is anything BUT a "consensus".

So you gotta ask yourself -- How did this 97% thing become a mantra and legend around world when a couple former amateurs crafted one poll that is not really a poll. And why would a mag like Scientific American waste their ink/paper to defend a bunch of scummy reprobates that have a freaking "ATOM BOMB COUNTER" on every page of their website to SCARE the public with the "equivalent energy of global warming"???????

It's because this is the biggest propaganda campaign EVER supported by activists and a handful of activists in labcoats that gave them cover..