Irreversible climate damage is imminent

[DerHoggz]

There are no viable alternatives to "big oil." There is nothing that is viable to replace that which fuels modern society. All the solar panels, wind turbines, and hydro-electric power you can create will never lift a passenger jet off the ground - just one tiny example of the futility of replacing today's power.

Dilithium crystals - now there's a potentially viable alternative.

SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!!

The nascent flight technology of the Wrights probably wouldn't lift a passenger jet either. Amazing what development can do for technology!

 

[Unrepresented]

Are those kids you are referring to scientists? Cause if they are not, they don't count!!

Smiling sun score:
gbrooding = 1
unrepresented = 0.

 

[DerHoggz]

It is by far the largest variable, and being the one singular cause of all "warming," the one variable with the most potential impact.

I just thought it was amusing how you gave the power to regulate The Sun to bureaucrats.

"By far". You're going to need a source for that.

 

[bmc]

There are no viable alternatives to "big oil." There is nothing that is viable to replace that which fuels modern society. All the solar panels, wind turbines, and hydro-electric power you can create will never lift a passenger jet off the ground - just one tiny example of the futility of replacing today's power.

Dilithium crystals - now there's a potentially viable alternative.

SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!!

Not so fast....

Invalid Link Removed

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Hmm...? From one of the articles above:

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

People were talking about dodgy funding earlier? From the paper:

"This drop in endorsement may be a manifestation of increasing taken-for-grantedness (e.g., Green, 2004) of anthropogenic climate science; the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks (McCright & Dunlap, 2010)."

Either way, as the paper says, the disagreement is still about the extent, not about a lack of human impact. Fairly sure I said that a while back in this thread.

 

[Schlyder]

491 days to "Climate Chaos"

 

[BawanaRik]

That's because there aren't any scientists who don't support my viewpoint.

I have this odd little viewpoint that's called "reality." When I get new data, it changes.

I do not think the universe changes simply because you get new data.

Reality stays the same. Your view of reality changes.

 

[callofcthulhu]

 

[GregC]

You are obviously not a finance type or you would recognize higher oil company taxes simply get passed on to you. And once they find a palatable way to tax you for climate the issue will disappear from the MSM as fast as Afghan war deaths disappeared when Obama became president.

And yes, everyone gets used by propaganda. I've known it most of my life, but became more keenly east after some study of Bernays. This I no longer respond to almost anything with the fervor you bring to this issue. I certainly no longer dismiss sides of any issue completely as I used to when I was politically 'partisan'. Now after 6 years of 'hope and change' I have learned to have no hope that anything will change beyond the growth of a fascistic form of crony capitalistic government.

Whew, yes, you've clearly shed the weighty chains of partisanship.

 

[Unrepresented]

Which is larger 5 or 15?

Do owls exist?

Are there hats?

 

[-Asdfgh-]

All the solar panels, wind turbines, and hydro-electric power you can create will never lift a passenger jet off the ground - just one tiny example of the futility of replacing today's power.

Given enough energy you can reform carbon dioxide from the air and hydrogen from electrolysis of water into synthetic hydrocarbon fuels. It's not a very efficient (i.e. not cheap) way of doing it, but the US Navy is doing it to fuel jets. The logic of doing this is that they have excess energy from an aircraft carrier's powerplant, and it is in case resupply by tanker ships isn't possible.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

When I get new data, it changes.

Well said. That is what always confused me of accusations of politicians 'flip-flopping'. If new data comes in and your previous position was incorrect then you should change your position. If evidence came in to show that human releases of CO2 were not causing climate change I'd change my position on this, plus breathe a big sigh of relief.

 

[BawanaRik]

How about being rid of tax breaks in general? Mortgage, dependents etc?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324789504578380684292877300

I think these tax breaks cost close to 4 trillion a year. Eliminating those breaks would be good for everyone.

 

[Solarmist]

How about being rid of tax breaks in general? Mortgage, dependents etc?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324789504578380684292877300

I think these tax breaks cost close to 4 trillion a year. Eliminating those breaks would be good for everyone.

Yes - getting rid of our current tax code, and doing a complete overhaul would be a big net plus for America.

 

[Metalbasspro]

Anyone know the effects of the Geo Engineering spraying going on in the skies has on the issue? How do we know it's not being intentionally created?

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Yes - getting rid of our current tax code, and doing a complete overhaul would be a big net plus for America.

Sorely needed over here too, far too many loopholes.

 

[BawanaRik]

Sorely needed over here too, far too many loopholes.

I'm a fan of keeping it simple. The KIS system. Keep It Simple.

Great name for a band.

 

[ChrisB2]

How utterly ironic that this video references the very same study as the article I quoted earlier.

As the video indicates, yes, "97% endorsed the ... position that humans are causing global warming."

Funny that the video misused the report to deceive viewers that 97 of scientists agree.

The reality, as explained by the article I quoted (which I'm sure you didn't bother reading), is that among the scientific abstracts which endorse antropogenic global warming (AGW), 97.1% endorse the position that humans are causing it.

In other words, 97.1% of scientists who believe humans cause global warming believe humans cause global warming. Duh...

What the video leaves out is that this review revealed that 66.4% of the total of all abstracts studied had no position on AGW.

So, among the 1/3 of literature that endorsed AWG, most scientists believe humans are causing it.

Cut and dry? Not.

What does this mean? That video is a slick piece that distorts truth for its own agenda. in other words, create a propaganda video that misrepresents a scientific study, take a few jabs at Americans and climate change deniers, throw in a few expletive-deletives, and you have a nice tool for deceiving the public.

Good job Bill Nye, Propaganda Guy.

 

[Unrepresented]

How utterly ironic that this video references the very same study as the article I quoted earlier.

As the video indicates, yes, "97% endorsed the ... position that humans are causing global warming."

Funny that the video misused the report to deceive viewers that 97 of scientists agree.

The reality, as explained by the article I quoted (which I'm sure you didn't bother reading), is that among the scientific abstracts which endorse antropogenic global warming (AGW), 97.1% endorse the position that humans are causing it.

In other words, 97.1% of scientists who believe humans cause global warming believe humans cause global warming. Duh...

What the video leaves out is that this review revealed that 66.4% of the total of all abstracts studied had no position on AGW.

So, among the 1/3 of literature that endorsed AWG, most scientists believe humans are causing it.

Cut and dry? Not.

What does this mean? That video is a slick piece that distorts truth for its own agenda. in other words, create a propaganda video that misrepresents a scientific study, take a few jabs at Americans and climate change deniers, throw in a few expletive-deletives, and you have a nice tool for deceiving the public.

Good job Bill Nye, Propaganda Guy.

I think it's safe to say that those who don't specifically discuss the source of global warming must be skeptics. Absence of public statement is tantamount of supporting your side.

 

[drumsnbass]

I think it's safe to say that those who don't specifically discuss the source of global warming must be skeptics. Absence of public statement is tantamount of supporting your side.

You still have not explained how getting my pocket picked will change all this. I'm all eyeballs. Try not to deflect this time.