Don’t Call It Climate Change. Red States Prepare For ‘Extreme Weather’

[ding]

Show me his published science.

Why? You already shown you are willing to poo poo published papers without reading them or challenging any of its content.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If it’s consensus, it isn’t science.

Yes, I believe I have tried to explain that to you before. Consensus is merely a symptom of the science, when it overwhelimingly points in one direction.

And if you truly understood this, you would understand how utterly worthless you posting the opinion of 500 people is. So clearly it is you who has a lot of catching up to do.

 

[ding]

About 30,000 research papers that touch on climate change in one way or another make it through good peer review and are published EVERY YEAR. 30,000.

But hey, look at this... a single paper by authors of low credibility, published in a journal of low credibility, that was not subjected to proper peer review. Looks like the jig is up!

This is still you not challenging the content. Science doesn't work by consensus. It works on data.

 

[Nostra]

I remember the good ol days when the Cult was telling us we would all die from the impending Ice Age.

 

[ding]

Right, there is consensus in scientists. This arises from the evidence. I know you don't understand this. Like, at all. and I doubt I have the remedial education skills or patience to make you understand.

Prior to Einstein the consensus was that time was constant.

 

[ding]

Yes, I believe I have tried to explain that to you before. Consensus is merely a symptom of the science, when it overwhelimingly points in one direction.

And if you truly understood this, you would understand how utterly worthless you posting the opinion of 500 people is. So clearly it is you who has a lot of catching up to do.

Again...

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That is not realistic.
What action? Exactly.
Build 5,000 Nuclear Power plants?
Build 1,500 sq. mile solar arrays?
EV cars? Haha... yeah.. no... that would be an environmental holocaust.

I am all for better energy technology. 100%. But neither side of the government is the least bit interested. Both - BOTH - are in the pockets of the investor class who want things to stay just as they are. The "Green initiative" - laughably inadequate and filled to the brim of padding pockets.
We will never replace them either. Because they have us so divided we would never vote for change.

The answer is to heavily invest in alt energy sources (yes, including nuclear) to subsidize both faster development and cheaper prices. Make it more economical to use other sources of energy, and the rest will take care of itself.

The government offered federally backed loans for companies to build nuke plants about 10 years ago. As of now, I believe only two companies took advantage and are building new nuke plants. Now why is that? Much of it is the possibly VERY high exposure to risk (liability) due to plant failures or waste storage problems.

Another hurdle is location. Can't build near where people live (they will block the project). Can't build near fault lines, flood plains, high fire risk areas, and tornado alley brings its own risks.

Yet, despite having to be built away from these things, nuke plants require access to lots of water and running waterways, for getting rid of excess water. Not exactly a recipe that leaves a lot of good locations.

So there are a lot of hurdles to building nuke plants that have nothing to do with the imagined political power of environmentalists.

 

[BackAgain]

It is not global cooling. Not a new ice age. Nor is it global warming. It became AGW. The A was for Anthropogenic. That is, humans caused all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere and that, in turn, is “the cause” of global warming. But at some point AGW cult realized how specious their claim of causality was (since after all the Earth had ice ages come and go and come back again before humans had much of a population foothold or any appreciable industry causing much carbon release into the air.

So, at least for a while, the new catch phrase is “global climate change.” I guess the A is still implicit since the AGW cult still places all blame on humanity and capitalism.

one possible way to ameliorate the linguistic confusion is to start talking about Global Climate Variability. Did I mention the Ice Ages coming and going time and again?

Finally, let’s stop attacking “change.” Global Climate has never ever been anything close to “static.”

Humans may be contributing the present day crisis. Yes. I am willing to concede that. And to the extent that’s true, I also agree we need to attend to things like deforestation. But the wholesale assault on capitalism using this issue as cover needs to be fully exposed and stopped.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The right is waking up to the reality of climate change.

However since they spent a couple of decades saying it was all a hoax and not real, the republican politicians are now having to use the words" extreme weather."

No matter what terminology they use, they are finally waking up to the reality of it and finally taking some steps to combat the effects of climate change.

The sad thing, we never would have had to do this if the right had not spent so much time denying it's happening and actually took steps to combat it we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.

It's going to cost much more and we will have to take more steps to combat it since it was allowed to get so bad.

I sure wish the right had woken up decades ago to this problem. It wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

That half a billion that DeSantis is going to spend isn't federal tax dollars. It's state tax dollars which means the state of Florida is going to have to raise taxes in some way soon.

They will probably do as they have been doing with taxes for decades.

Hit the guests who go there as tourists. The last time I was in Florida there were FIVE separate taxes on hotels and car rentals. While the taxes on the people who live there are very low.

The last thing a republican is going to do is be responsible and pay their own way.

So don't be surprised if it's much more expensive to visit Florida than it already is.

Don’t call it climate change. Red states prepare for ‘extreme weather’

Bracing for global warming is the rare climate issue that appeals to both Republicans and Democrats, and 34 states have done some sort of climate-adaptation planning.

www.politico.com

Oh, no.

Not this stupid fraud shit that has been debunked 1000 times.

 

[skews13]

The right is waking up to the reality of climate change.

However since they spent a couple of decades saying it was all a hoax and not real, the republican politicians are now having to use the words" extreme weather."

No matter what terminology they use, they are finally waking up to the reality of it and finally taking some steps to combat the effects of climate change.

The sad thing, we never would have had to do this if the right had not spent so much time denying it's happening and actually took steps to combat it we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.

It's going to cost much more and we will have to take more steps to combat it since it was allowed to get so bad.

I sure wish the right had woken up decades ago to this problem. It wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

That half a billion that DeSantis is going to spend isn't federal tax dollars. It's state tax dollars which means the state of Florida is going to have to raise taxes in some way soon.

They will probably do as they have been doing with taxes for decades.

Hit the guests who go there as tourists. The last time I was in Florida there were FIVE separate taxes on hotels and car rentals. While the taxes on the people who live there are very low.

The last thing a republican is going to do is be responsible and pay their own way.

So don't be surprised if it's much more expensive to visit Florida than it already is.

Don’t call it climate change. Red states prepare for ‘extreme weather’

Bracing for global warming is the rare climate issue that appeals to both Republicans and Democrats, and 34 states have done some sort of climate-adaptation planning.

www.politico.com

They don't have to wake up to it. They don't even have to wake up to the fact that they lost the messaging war on it a long time ago.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

500 experts

Experts on what? Not climate science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They don't have to wake up to it. They don't even have to wake up to the fact that they lost the messaging war on it a long time ago.

Man, I wish that were true. I'm not sure it is. Look at the effort these guys put forth. You don't see them doing this with other scientific theories. I mean, yeah, it's no actual challenge to the theory. But it is quite a challenge to acting on it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

100% correct. Consensus arises from the science, not the other way around.

Try to keep in mind: YOU are the fool who always has this backwards. YOU are the one who accuses scientists of inventing and fudging science to match the consensus.

or did you forget? So, maybe go find a mirror and repeat your little lecture.

You missed the point AGAIN.

Consensus is NOT scientific. Science is not based on consensus.

Only hacks rely on consensus to prove a theory.

Theories are not proved. Only disproved.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They don't have to wake up to it. They don't even have to wake up to the fact that they lost the messaging war on it a long time ago.

So, you admit that it's not scientific? Just propaganda?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Consensus is NOT scientific.

Never claimed it was. Science is scientific.

Yet here you are, presenting the opinions of "500 experts".

So make up your mind.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Never claimed it was. Science is scientific.

Yet here you are, presenting the opinions of "500 experts".

So make up your mind.

Make up yours.

So there's no fucking consensus (500 experts) and the theory cannot be disproved (not scientific).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

So, IPCC is not a consensus of opinion. It isn't meant to be. It is basically just a compilation of the evidence and the best short term climate predictions. It's "actionable intelligence" for governments and the private sector. Their opinions of what to do about it are up to them.

These are separate topics entirely.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So there's no fucking consensus (500 experts)

Oh yes, there is still overwhelming consensus.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh yes, there is still overwhelming consensus.

Here you are again, relying on consensus.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

So, IPCC is not a consensus of opinion. It isn't meant to be. It is basically just a compilation of the evidence and the best short term climate predictions. It's "actionable intelligence" for governments and the private sector. Their opinions of what to do about it are up to them.

These are separate topics entirely.

And science it is NOT.