My Take On Things

[HikerGuy83]

Oh, here's a gem.

Another climate scientist (who might be brilliant at his job but) who is an idiot when it comes to messaging:

MSN

“We are careening toward fossil-fueled heatwaves that will kill over a million people in single events."

Now that wasn't an alarmist statement.

"The only way out is to end fossil fuels,”

Of course. I might even agree with him, but I would not take that kind of an approach.

And he continued: “Speaking as a scientist, it seems ignorant and short-sighted. It’s certainly a form of climate denial. And I have no doubt that fossil fuel executives and lobbyists — and those who chose to stand with them — will, in the future, be considered criminals.”

And there you have it. Trotsky in a climate scientist's coat.

I wonder if he realizes that shutting up will cut down on "needless" greenhouse gas emissions.

Seriously, this whole movement needs a PR firm to help them with their messaging.

There are a whole lot of oil execs who have a whole lot of money that he doesn't have.

 

[ding]

I think jc456 had it right.

We need to define the problem so we can start to understand what the solution will look like.

Or if there really is a problem. It's a leap of faith to believe that CO2 levels will drive a climate change (from icehouse planet to greenhouse planet) when CO2 levels have never been shown to drive a climate change. If man is affecting the planet's climate - and it's not a stretch to say he is - then the most likely culprit is urbanization and deforestation. But there's no money in that so let's all blame CO2 emissions instead.

 

[jc456]

I think jc456 had it right.

We need to define the problem so we can start to understand what the solution will look like.

Dagosa only cares about institutes

 

[Dagosa]

Dagosa only cares about institutes

So, you’re smarter then Harvard, John’s Hopkins and Cornell ? You’re amount friends on the right. Go ahead. Tell us how much smarter you are.

 

[ding]

So, you’re smarter then Harvard, John’s Hopkins and Cornell ? You’re amount friends on the right. Go ahead. Tell us how much smarter you are.

I’m smarter than you. That’s enough for me. But I do wish you were more intelligent.

 

[jc456]

So, you’re smarter then Harvard, John’s Hopkins and Cornell ? You’re amount friends on the right. Go ahead. Tell us how much smarter you are.

Climate wise I am

 

[Dagosa]

Climate wise I am

Oh, climate wise you are ? Gee, you’re not smarter than their medical research ?

 

[jc456]

Oh, climate wise you are ? Gee, you’re not smarter than their medical research ?

It depends

 

[Crick]

Oh, here's a gem.

Another climate scientist (who might be brilliant at his job but) who is an idiot when it comes to messaging:

MSN

“We are careening toward fossil-fueled heatwaves that will kill over a million people in single events."

Now that wasn't an alarmist statement.

"The only way out is to end fossil fuels,”

Of course. I might even agree with him, but I would not take that kind of an approach.

And he continued: “Speaking as a scientist, it seems ignorant and short-sighted. It’s certainly a form of climate denial. And I have no doubt that fossil fuel executives and lobbyists — and those who chose to stand with them — will, in the future, be considered criminals.”

And there you have it. Trotsky in a climate scientist's coat.

I wonder if he realizes that shutting up will cut down on "needless" greenhouse gas emissions.

Seriously, this whole movement needs a PR firm to help them with their messaging.

There are a whole lot of oil execs who have a whole lot of money that he doesn't have.

Do you have any evidence that his statement "we are careening towards fossil-fueled heatwaves that will kill over a million people in single events" is unsupported by evidence? You conclude the statement is alarmist without every taking any measure of its validity.

 

[jc456]

Do you have any evidence that his statement "we are careening towards fossil-fueled heatwaves that will kill over a million people in single events" is unsupported by evidence? You conclude the statement is alarmist without every taking any measure of its validity.

So folks, here it is, classic..... if ever there was a single post that was so fked up, crick conquered it. Crick Show me the evidence that he didn't show evidence. hahahahahahahahahahahaha Holy fk crick, that's a new fking low for you!!!!!

how about the mere fact you can't show his evidence supports the previous post by hiker, is the evidence you are looking for! pthhhhhhahahahahahahahaahhahahaaha

 

[Concerned American]

You conclude the statement is alarmist without every taking any measure of its validity.

Every doomsday prediction of a catastrophic climate event of the 20th or 21st century has been PROVEN to be false. I don't think any of your arguments have been valid and they are extremely alarmist in tone.

 

[Crick]

Every doomsday prediction of a catastrophic climate event of the 20th or 21st century has been PROVEN to be false.

Find us a list of predictions actually made by published climate scientists that have been proven false

I don't think any of your arguments have been valid and they are extremely alarmist in tone.

Then you should have no problem actually demonstrating that my arguments are invalid and that I have made use of excessive or exaggerated threats.

 

[Concerned American]

Then you should have no problem actually demonstrating that my arguments are invalid

You've done a fine job of that yourself. Now keep talking in circles, you'll only get dizzier than you already are.

 

[jc456]

Find us a list of predictions actually made by published climate scientists that have been proven false

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...

cei.org

 

[jc456]

Then you should have no problem actually demonstrating that my arguments are invalid and that I have made use of excessive or exaggerated threats.

post a prediction that has come true.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Do you have any evidence that his statement "we are careening towards fossil-fueled heatwaves that will kill over a million people in single events" is unsupported by evidence? You conclude the statement is alarmist without every taking any measure of its validity.

Except the point wasn't his scientific claim.

As I CLEARLY stated in the OP....it's the messaging.

And your smug lecturing is a prime example of it.

I am fine with him putting forth his claims. As I've said, to understand the conclusions, you have to understand the science and that isn't easy.

"End fossil fuels" ????? Really.....I guess you really don't care about being taken seriously. I often find that if people simply get the issue and are allowed to discuss the potential solutions, they are much more willing to own them. Right now, a lot of people are not listening to this guy and he might have a lot to say.

And there was.....

“Speaking as a scientist, it seems ignorant and short-sighted. It’s certainly a form of climate denial. And I have no doubt that fossil fuel executives and lobbyists — and those who chose to stand with them — will, in the future, be considered criminals.”

Simply stupid stupid stupid.

That is what the OP is about. Can you not get outside of your need to lecture people and actually pay attention to what is being said ?

 

[jc456]

Except the point wasn't his scientific claim.

As I CLEARLY stated in the OP....it's the messaging.

And your smug lecturing is a prime example of it.

I am fine with him putting forth his claims. As I've said, to understand the conclusions, you have to understand the science and that isn't easy.

"End fossil fuels" ????? Really.....I guess you really don't care about being taken seriously. I often find that if people simply get the issue and are allowed to discuss the potential solutions, they are much more willing to own them. Right now, a lot of people are not listening to this guy and he might have a lot to say.

And there was.....

“Speaking as a scientist, it seems ignorant and short-sighted. It’s certainly a form of climate denial. And I have no doubt that fossil fuel executives and lobbyists — and those who chose to stand with them — will, in the future, be considered criminals.”

Simply stupid stupid stupid.

That is what the OP is about. Can you not get outside of your need to lecture people and actually pay attention to what is being said ?

Once condescending always condescending

 

[HikerGuy83]

Once condescending always condescending

I've seen it far too many times in far too many different situations.

You can be RIGHT in a very WRONG way.

 

[EMH]

I don't pay much attention to this topic simply because I don't have the time to sort the fact from the fiction. Additionally, the whole thing suffers from decades of shrill drama and dire predictions that didn't happen (following Katrina, the global warming community said we'd being seeing more of the same on a regular basis....and we didn't).

I see arguments over temperature graphs and who lied and who said what.

I see arguments over sea levels and ice content of glaciers. Data is seemingly disputed (which seems really odd to me) and, of course, conclusions or projections are very ominous on the part of the global warming community. My news feeds are filled with global warming doom.

MSN

www.msn.com

MSN

www.msn.com

MSN

www.msn.com

MSN

www.msn.com

In my estimation, one of the worst things that the global warming community did was to let Al Gore be their spokesperson. Al could have been 100% correct (I don't know how correct he turned out to be), but Al was a politician and a polarizing one at that. He also comes across in a very bad way. So, you take a highly visible career politician and he puts out a film on global warming.

That doesn't work. And it didn't. I hear people rail on it and I ask what was in it and they can't tell me. They just know they didn't like Al Gore and that was it.

What I posted was above (in terms of links) is just a smattering of what is out there.

I recently scanned an article where we are, once again, talking about tipping points.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

'We are hitting climate tipping points,' scientists warn – DW – 07/28/2021 (from 2021)

You also have movies like the Day after that are super dire predictions. Which tend to turn a lot of people off (if this was supposed to be some kind of wake-up call, it failed).

On the other hand, you have a range of reactions from those who don't believe that this is an issue (or not an issue we can deal with).

They include:

1. The scientists are lying.
2. The scientists just want more funding.
3. The economic consequences of doing something are not viable
4. Why do anything if China and India are not going to do something ?

I honestly have not landed on a position.

I am a skeptic (Al Gore, who I detest, didn't help things). But I also know this could be real.
It feels like we are arguing two extremes.....on one hand we need to do do extreme (see below) on the other....there is no crisis.
You would think reasonable people could figure out what the real truth is.

This is what was from one of the articles I cited and represents (in many ways) the approach that gets them labeled "Chicken Little"

Researchers reiterated calls for transformative change, listing three main emergency responses in the immediate term:
Phasing out and eliminating fossil fuels

• Implementing "a significant carbon price"
• Restoring ecosystems such as carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots

Climate change should be included in core curricula in schools worldwide to raise awareness, the authors said.

Scientists also urged slashing pollutants, stabilizing the human population and switching to plant-based diets.

"We need to stop treating the climate emergency as a standalone issue — global heating is not the sole symptom of our stressed Earth system," said William Ripple, a lead author of the study and professor of ecology at Oregon State University's College of Forestry.

"Policies to combat the climate crisis or any other symptoms should address their root cause: human overexploitation of the planet."

(Cont'd)

Try this one, which has been posted over and over.

Ice controls the climate. Ice, the amount of ice on Earth, dictates

ocean levels
temperature
atmospheric thickness/density
humidity


Where is the ice on Earth?

90% on Antarctica
7% on Greenland
0.3% on Ellesmere Island


The ice is on LAND NEAR A POLE.... and LAND MOVES....

are you following...

 

[Concerned American]

and LAND MOVES..

Please don't tell me that you are one of Maxine Water's minions that are waiting for Guam to capsize.