The Green New Deal and the Elephant in the Room

[Lesh]

Science is never settled. I hate it when dumb people say that.

Sorry but it is. Yea..the exact details are still being worked out but the fact that it's happening and that man is causing the rapid increase is NOT in doubt...at least not scientifically

I hate when dishonest people misrepresent that

 

[Hale]

The ONLY thing debatable regarding Climate Change is the politics...because of people like you.

The Science is long settled.

You can repeat this "settled science" crap as often as you like, but it doesn't make it true. The politics are inseparable, and there's plenty of scientists who disagree with "global warming".

I know you think you're "all-seeing all-knowing", but at 64 I've seen more - including the impending and unstoppable ice age, the utter destruction predicted from pollution, and the "inevitable" world-wide famines from insufficient food production, just to mention a few. Little if anything was done about these, and none of them happened. Live and learn.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Science is never settled. I hate it when dumb people say that.

Sorry but it is. Yea..the exact details are still being worked out but the fact that it's happening and that man is causing the rapid increase is NOT in doubt...at least not scientifically

I hate when dishonest people misrepresent that

making the claim it is settled science just gives your opponents ammunition against you. It is just not necessary. Science should never be settled, as that is not the job of science.

 

[Lesh]

Also, a debate that we should be having is whether our time and resources are better spent trying to stop what is likely too late to stop or do we mitigate the effect it has on we humans in general, and Americans specifically.

Deniers have POLITICALLY dragged their feet for the last 15 years...and now you claim it's too late

**** that. Science says we CAN mitigate it...if we act soon.

But no. Let's keep listening to the same bullshit we've been listening to for the last 15 years until it actually IS too late to do anything.

Newsflash...trying to deal with the effects are gonna cost a shitload more.

 

[Lesh]

The politics are inseparable, and there's plenty of scientists who disagree.

Science is science and politics is politics. They are NOT inseparable.

And there are a FEW scientists who disagree...and virtually ALL of those are in the pay of the energy companies or their lobbies

 

[Lesh]

making the claim it is settled science just gives your opponents ammunition against you. It is just not necessary. Science should never be settled, as that is not the job of science.

That's horseshit

Sorry but it is. Yea..the exact details are still being worked out but the fact that it's happening and that man is causing the rapid increase is NOT in doubt...at least not scientifically

 

[Hale]

And there are a FEW scientists who disagree...and virtually ALL of those are in the pay of the energy companies or their lobbies

Be sure to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you, that's how you earn your Bigot Merit Badge!

And you'll need to prove your claim about paid-off scientists. But you won't.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The ONLY thing debatable regarding Climate Change is the politics...because of people like you.

The Science is long settled.

You can repeat this "settled science" crap as often as you like, but it doesn't make it true. The politics are inseparable, and there's plenty of scientists who disagree.

I know you think you're "all-seeing all-knowing", but at 64 I've seen more - including the impending and unstoppable ice age, the utter destruction predicted from pollution, and the "inevitable" world-wide famines from insufficient food production, just to mention a few. Little if anything was done about these, and none of them happened. Live and learn.

If you are that old, then you know that the utter destruction predicted from pollution was taken seriously and massive changes to what we put into our air went into effect. Nobody stood there stomping their feet saying that pollution was not bad and that it was ok for LA to be covered in a smog bank.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

making the claim it is settled science just gives your opponents ammunition against you. It is just not necessary. Science should never be settled, as that is not the job of science.

That's horseshit

Sorry but it is. Yea..the exact details are still being worked out but the fact that it's happening and that man is causing the rapid increase is NOT in doubt...at least not scientifically

you do not seem to understand the nature of science

 

[Hale]

It's absolutely astonishing how many here lack even a basic grasp of scientific method.

 

[easyt65]

Science is never settled. I hate it when dumb people say that.

Sorry but it is. Yea..the exact details are still being worked out but the fact that it's happening and that man is causing the rapid increase is NOT in doubt...at least not scientifically

I hate when dishonest people misrepresent that

I agree....the science IS settled.

The Greenpeace guy declared it was when he ripped AOC and Global Warming nuts a new one last week.

 

[Lesh]

making the claim it is settled science just gives your opponents ammunition against you. It is just not necessary. Science should never be settled, as that is not the job of science.

That's horseshit

Sorry but it is. Yea..the exact details are still being worked out but the fact that it's happening and that man is causing the rapid increase is NOT in doubt...at least not scientifically

you do not seem to understand the nature of science

Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.

The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked.

Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades (indeed, the idea was first proposed in 1896). By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s. There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming. And there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it’s caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. Some aspects are less certain; for example, the net effect of aerosol pollution is known to be negative, but the exact value needs to be better constrained.

 

[Lesh]

Science is never settled. I hate it when dumb people say that.

Sorry but it is. Yea..the exact details are still being worked out but the fact that it's happening and that man is causing the rapid increase is NOT in doubt...at least not scientifically

I hate when dishonest people misrepresent that

I agree....the science IS settled.

The Greenpeace guy declared it was when he ripped AOC and Global Warming nuts a new one last week.

The "Greenpeace guy" lied about being a co-founder of Greenpeace and has been working for the fossil fuel industry for 35 years


so...

 

[Hale]

If you are that old, then you know that the utter destruction predicted from pollution was taken seriously and massive changes to what we put into our air went into effect. Nobody stood there stomping their feet saying that pollution was not bad and that it was ok for LA to be covered in a smog bank.

Quite the contrary. No massive changes took place at all. Bad chemicals were replaced by worse ones, water pollution is at an all time high, and LA is still covered in smog.

 

[Lesh]

If you are that old, then you know that the utter destruction predicted from pollution was taken seriously and massive changes to what we put into our air went into effect. Nobody stood there stomping their feet saying that pollution was not bad and that it was ok for LA to be covered in a smog bank.

Quite the contrary. No massive changes took place at all. Bad chemicals were replaced by worse ones, water pollution is at an all time high, and LA is still covered in smog.

None of which has anything to do with the subject

 

[easyt65]

Instead of impossible high speed trains that run on non-existent technology, you and AOC should be riding on a 'short bus'.

 

[Hale]

making the claim it is settled science just gives your opponents ammunition against you. It is just not necessary. Science should never be settled, as that is not the job of science.

That's horseshit

Sorry but it is. Yea..the exact details are still being worked out but the fact that it's happening and that man is causing the rapid increase is NOT in doubt...at least not scientifically

you do not seem to understand the nature of science

Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.

The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked.

Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades (indeed, the idea was first proposed in 1896). By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s. There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming. And there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it’s caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. Some aspects are less certain; for example, the net effect of aerosol pollution is known to be negative, but the exact value needs to be better constrained.

Except no warming has been measured for 20 years. Ooops!

 

[Rustic]

Even if you buy into the claim that unless we stop burning fossil fuels we're all going to die in 12 years, the so-called "Green New Deal" is still nothing but a fast-track to the destruction of the USA.

Most sources agree that the USA accounts for 15% of fossil fuels burned worldwide. So even if the USA eliminates their use completely, 85% of the alleged pollution production will remain.

No one claims a 15% reduction will be enough to stop the "catastrophe", yet most Democrats now support this clearly worthless "Green New Deal".

Why?

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Lesh]

Science is never settled. I hate it when dumb people say that.

Sorry but it is. Yea..the exact details are still being worked out but the fact that it's happening and that man is causing the rapid increase is NOT in doubt...at least not scientifically

I hate when dishonest people misrepresent that

I agree....the science IS settled.

The Greenpeace guy declared it was when he ripped AOC and Global Warming nuts a new one last week.

The "Greenpeace guy" lied about being a co-founder of Greenpeace and has been working for the fossil fuel industry for 35 years


so...

Patrick Moore..the Greenpeace guy

Moore's views and change of stance (see above) have evoked controversy in environmentalist arenas. He is accused of having "abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement" and "being a mouthpiece for some of the very interests Greenpeace was founded to counter".[28][58] His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[28] Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[44] Monte Hummel, president of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, has claimed that Moore's book Pacific Spirit is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions".

The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP). Moore was hired as a consultant to write an environmental 'inspection report' on APP operations. According to Monbiot, Moore's company is not a monitoring firm and the consultants used were experts in public relations, not tropical ecology or Indonesian law. Monbiot has said that sections of the report were directly copied from an APP PR brochure.[33][59]

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If you are that old, then you know that the utter destruction predicted from pollution was taken seriously and massive changes to what we put into our air went into effect. Nobody stood there stomping their feet saying that pollution was not bad and that it was ok for LA to be covered in a smog bank.

Quite the contrary. No massive changes took place at all. Bad chemicals were replaced by worse ones, water pollution is at an all time high, and LA is still covered in smog.