Irreversible climate damage is imminent

[DerHoggz]

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.

You're terribad at reading, but great at putting an idiotic spin on something that is clearly laid out. Here is a quote from the abstract "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." Notice that it is among any expressing any opinion, not only those that endorsed AGW. You'd make a great shill!

Bill Nye is awesome, check his debate with Ken Ham and tell me he isn't.

 

[Unrepresented]

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

You're still defining "government involvement" as "picking your pocket." I suspect your eyes may not be as open as you believe they are.

Regulation costs money.

You like having safe meat to eat. Unregulated meat costs less, but there's big government "picking your pocket."

You like having safe vehicles to drive. Unregulated cars cost less, but there's big government "picking your pocket."

You like having predictable weather patterns, sea levels, water supplies, etc. Unregulated pollution costs less, but there's big government "picking your pocket."

 

[DerHoggz]

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

I have never really looked into proposed policy, but if you could provide some examples that would be great. However, it should be noted that this is a separate topic from the existence of AGW.

 

[DerHoggz]

How much money is wasted paying elected officials to argue against reality?

Would gas be cheaper if so much of the profits weren't spent on lobbying and arguing against reality?

 

[Unrepresented]

How much money is wasted paying elected officials to argue against reality?

Would gas be cheaper if so much of the profits weren't spent on lobbying and arguing against reality?

Join me in recognizing that competition is not the answer, unless the question is inefficient uses of resources.

 

[drumsnbass]

I have never really looked into proposed policy, but if you could provide some examples that would be great. However, it should be noted that this is a separate topic from the existence of AGW.

Not really, I believe it is at the heart of it all and carefully not discussed openly by those who see it as yet another money grab.

History shows (as Rahm Emmanuel say) 'never let a good crisis go to waste' and we are masters at that. 9/11 brought us the infernal Patriot Act with all it's inherent spying and commensurate 'security state' spending. Yet the NSA could not prove ONE instance of how it has made us safer.

The natural order of government is to protect itself and grow bigger. To do so it needs money. At present all forms of government in the US form more than 45% of GDP, yet the money to sustain this size and largess does not exist. This we need crisis after crisis (and commensurate legislation, taxation and regulation) to keep it growing and well fed. The crisis always seems to disappear once the tax gets instituted.

I think in 2009? FaceBook or it's founder gave something like $100 million to Newark NJ for a pilot schools program. A few scant years later the money was gone -- consumed by unions and consultants with no measurable progress in the classrooms.

Four years ago I attended a birthday party for a long time friend. In attendance was a guy in his mid/late 50's who retired as a government scientist out of Sandia labs. I joked he must be one of those $100k plus a year retirees and straight faced he said 'you bet'!

The current VA scandal shows the general lack of accountability of a program held up as a model by many for ObamaCare. Need I say more there?

The SIGTARP openly discussed how TARP was abused by the banks, but no one went to jail.

The list goes on and on. I am by no means anti government, but I am (as all should be) anti-waste and pro-accountability.

I don't want to see my pocket picked to see it burned up like so many other times with no accountability. I'm tired of Solyndras, and fake promises. I see no way a GW/CC tax will improve anything, yet history tells me we are headed that way before it all ends.

Some cannot look beyond the propaganda they are fed. They think the 'issue du juer' is important because they are told it is important. It's not. It's just another tightly controlled message to get people in a tizzy, be it the Tea Party, Occupy, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell or whoever is sending it.

I've travelled enough to know the US is an incredible and fantastic country following the 'road to ruin' like all great empires before it. It makes me sad.

 

[DerHoggz]

Not really, I believe it is at the heart of it all and carefully not discussed openly by those who see it as yet another money grab.

History shows (as Rahm Emmanuel say) 'never let a good crisis go to waste' and we are masters at that. 9/11 brought us the infernal Patriot Act with all it's inherent spying and commensurate 'security state' spending. Yet the NSA could not prove ONE instance of how it has made us safer.

The natural order of government is to protect itself and grow bigger. To do so it needs money. At present all forms of government in the US form more than 45% of GDP, yet the money to sustain this size and largess does not exist. This we need crisis after crisis (and commensurate legislation, taxation and regulation) to keep it growing and well fed. The crisis always seems to disappear once the tax gets instituted.

I think in 2009? FaceBook or it's founder gave something like $100 million to Newark NJ for a pilot schools program. A few scant years later the money was gone -- consumed by unions and consultants with no measurable progress in the classrooms.

Four years ago I attended a birthday party for a long time friend. In attendance was a guy in his mid/late 50's who retired as a government scientist out of Sandia labs. I joked he must be one of those $100k plus a year retirees and straight faced he said 'you bet'!

The current VA scandal shows the general lack of accountability of a program held up as a model by many for ObamaCare. Need I say more there?

The SIGTARP openly discussed how TARP was abused by the banks, but no one went to jail.

The list goes on and on. I am by no means anti government, but I am (as all should be) anti-waste and pro-accountability.

I don't want to see my pocket picked to see it burned up like so many other times with no accountability. I'm tired of Solyndras, and fake promises. I see no way a GW/CC tax will improve anything, yet history tells me we are headed that way before it all ends.

Some cannot look beyond the propaganda they are fed. They think the 'issue du juer' is important because they are told it is important. It's not. It's just another tightly controlled message to get people in a tizzy, be it the Tea Party, Occupy, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell or whoever is sending it.

I've travelled enough to know the US is an incredible and fantastic country following the 'road to ruin' like all great empires before it. It makes me sad.

That all concerns the politics of it. It has no bearing on the science of it.

 

[Unrepresented]

That all concerns the politics of it. It has no bearing on the science of it.

But if you dislike the politics enough you send a flesh covered, time traveling robot back to terminate the science of it. In this case, that time traveling robot is called "cynicism."

 

[DerHoggz]

Join me in recognizing that competition is not the answer, unless the question is inefficient uses of resources.

I'm no economist, but certainly that is better than monopolies? I'll get back to you though, currently listening to some RATM.

 

[Unrepresented]

I'm no economist, but certainly that is better than monopolies? I'll get back to you though, currently listening to some RATM.

Neither is ideal, honestly. But a lot of the Adam Smith ideology is given far too much weight. Capitalism has multiple companies all doing slightly different versions of the same thing rather than one company doing that one thing far more efficiently. Not to mention each of those companies is doing that with the goal of profit margin rather than best product/service.

 

[callofcthulhu]

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.

First off, no I didn't read your article, I just saw the thread title in the feed and posted the video without reading any of the thread. I'm not gonna trawl through 50 pages looking for it, so feel free to repost it if you want me to see it.

Second off, don't talk smack about Bill Nye, he didn't even speak in that video. John Oliver's the host of the show, though it's likely his writing team who did the bulk of the work on the skit.

Third off, there is no agenda here. It's a comedy show. The agenda is to make people laugh.

Finally, I suggest you smell what you're shoveling. You want to draw a distinction between studies that ask "Is the Earth warming" and "Are humans responsible for the Earth's warming?" Fine. That doesn't change what the answer comes out to be. You sound like a damn child. "Did someone steal from the cookie jar?" "Yes." "Did you steal from the cookie jar?" "Hey, hey, hey, you're CLEARLY biased. Anyone who would ask that question clearly already knows what answer they're looking for, so how can you trust the answer they find?"

 

[drumsnbass]

That all concerns the politics of it. It has no bearing on the science of it.

As I noted earlier, we could 'solve' this issue right now if we chose. We could implement simple legislation to change and reduce the larges causes of greenhouse gasses with barely a nickel of taxation needed. We could legislate away cows for example (huge methane emitters) but the cattle industry would be unhappy, people would miss their steaks ;I prefer pork), and people would not get re-elected.

We could restrict miles driven per auto every year via gas rationing. However people would immediately lose jobs, the economy would tail spin down, and people would not get re-elected.

We could outright ban the use of coal. Again, lost jobs, lost elections, higher electric costs, slower economy.

Or...

We can keep beating the GE/CC drum and, like the Patriot Act, have the legislation on a shelf awaiting a vote for when the right 'crisis' arrives, rush it thru without reading it, tax people, and tell them it's needed to fix the 'crisis'.

Remember all the AG's who sued 'big tobacco'? We needed to money to take care of the social costs of long term smokers, right? Except most of those settlements were securitized off almost immediately and the money long spent. It won't be there

for any smokers costs in the future.

 

[nukes_da_bass]

"The Market" wants three types of beds.
"The state" will.produce one type.
Why? Because it eradicated the market.
As for me, I will choose Freewill.

 

[4StringAxe]

it shatters the illusion of integrity Nukes.

 

[DerHoggz]

Glittering prizes, endless compromises.

 

[4StringAxe]

Glittering prizes, endless compromises.

one likes to believe.

 

[Solarmist]

Join me in recognizing that competition is not the answer, unless the question is inefficient uses of resources.

I can't believe what I'm reading - I'm at a complete loss for words.

 

[Tom Bomb]

Some more fuel for the fire? Give the girls a go

With our planet in peril and so many of our politicians in denial, more and more private citizens, including writers, feel compelled to take up the battle.

US science historian Naomi Oreskes exposed the web of vested interests behind US climate deniers with her book “Merchants of Doubt”. Meanwhile, award-winning young Australian writer Anna Krien immersed herself in the battle to save Tasmania’s wilderness in her debut book, “Into The Woods”.
They explain their similar passions, different strategies and what it’s like to make powerful enemies to the former Young Environmentalist of the Year, Amanda McKenzie

 

[Unrepresented]

I can't believe what I'm reading - I'm at a complete loss for words.

I suspect that won't keep you from replying to my posts.

 

[mellowinman]

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

Reality stays the same. Your view of reality changes.

Context, man. Context.