Irreversible climate damage is imminent

[mellowinman]

"Captain, I can't believe my ears."

"I can't believe your ears either, Mr. Spock."

 

[vin*tone]

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.

OK I have a serious question - Do you think the study quoted is compelling evidence that there are a "Majority of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis"?

 

[bolophonic]

I fully agree - we're already heavily over regulated.

You do realize that when political mouths are yammering about unburdening the public from "overregulation" they are not promising to free up barriers to small business ownership or remove onerous HOA covenants, right? They are talking about re-writing legislation to allow polluters to shift the hazards and costs of their business onto the public. I guess some of you don't mind drinking and breathing pollution in tribute to the "Big Dogs," but I find it ludicrous.

 

[BawanaRik]

Context, man. Context.

Now you have me wondering when the next Archer season hits dvd.

 

[duff beer]

I wish someone would post something ridiculous in this thread.

Do you mean other than the hundreds of comments by people that think the government can control the climate if we would just give them more money and more power?

 

[eyeballkid]

.

 

[drumsnbass]

Do you mean other than the hundreds of comments by people that think the government can control the climate if we would just give them more money and more power?

So long as it is (mostly) not their money they are happy if people get taxed more for nothing to 'save the planet'.

I'm still awaiting a serious answer as to why we can just legislate it all tomorrow without any future taxes tied to it....

I think I'll be waiting a long time, too.

 

[vin*tone]

^^ Huh? Is that a serious question? Why can't we just legislate the entire world?

Yeah I reckon you could be waiting a while.

 

[duff beer]

^^ Huh? Is that a serious question? Why can't we just legislate the entire world?

The UN does want to legislate the entire world. Look up global carbon tax and Agenda 21.

 

[vin*tone]

"Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.[1] It is a product of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. ....."

From what I read here there are waaaaaaay bigger threats to national sovereignty than this. Trans pacific partnership for one.

And fwiw I live in a country with a carbon tax which is designed to be revenue neutral. Power prices rose about 8% but all taxpayers are compensated annually through tax returns. I personally installed a 1.5kw solar array on my roof and now have a net reduction in my bill of around 25%. Which is the entire point. Less power use. Less co2. Costs less. Nobody lost their job. Nobody's liberties were infringed. And the economy didn't die a horrible death. So excuse me if I don't buy into this whole scare thing.

 

[ChrisB2]

Plot idea: environmentalist wackos distort study findings to mislead the public that 97% of scientists agree that irreversible man made climate change is imminent.

 

[ChrisB2]

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?"

I'll ignore your rudeness and correct your analogy.

The video is saying "study shows 97% of beef has cheese on it" when the full abstract is 34% of beef is used to make hamburgers and 97% of hamburgers have cheese on them.

 

[bolophonic]

Do you mean other than the hundreds of comments by people that think the government can control the climate if we would just give them more money and more power?

I know that is what you think you keep reading, but I doubt you could give an actual example of that claim.

 

[nukes_da_bass]

HAARP.
Google it.

 

[bolophonic]

So long as it is (mostly) not their money they are happy if people get taxed more for nothing to 'save the planet'.

I'm still awaiting a serious answer as to why we can just legislate it all tomorrow without any future taxes tied to it....

I think I'll be waiting a long time, too.

Since you are raising a giant straw man argument about taxes, I would just like to add that I would prefer my tax money be spent on renewable energy than on propping up the oil industry with massive, endless subsidies and tax breaks in order to keep gasoline prices low. If you are really concerned about where your taxes are actually going now, you might want to include this in your outrage.

 

[blue4]

I just ask myself what's more likely. Is it more likely that that thousands of scientists, trained in different schools, from different countries, who really have little to gain financially, and have no actual political power, are involved in a global conspiracy to falsely convince people that the world climate is changing and that if we act now we can minimize the damage? Or is it more likely that a group of corporations along with their paid politicians, who have everything to gain, who are already in some cases global entities, and have large amounts of political power thru previously mentioned politicians, are misleading the public in order to maintain their wealth? If the scientific community was split 50/50, maybe I'd doubt their word but they're not.
Besides, even if they're wrong, what's really going to happen? I have cleaner air, water and drive a Prius instead of an Elantra?
It doesn't take a scientist to see that they way we do things is unsustainable for our grandchildren and great grandchildren.

 

[bolophonic]

I just ask myself what's more likely. Is it more likely that that thousands of scientists, trained in different schools, from different countries, who really have little to gain financially, and have no actual political power, are involved in a global conspiracy to falsely convince people that the world climate is changing and that if we act now we can minimize the damage? Or is it more likely that a group of corporations along with their paid politicians, who have everything to gain, who are already in some cases global entities, and have large amounts of political power thru previously mentioned politicians, are misleading the public in order to maintain their wealth? If the scientific community was split 50/50, maybe I'd doubt their word but they're not.
Besides, even if they're wrong, what's really going to happen? I have cleaner air, water and drive a Prius instead of an Elantra?
It doesn't take a scientist to see that they way we do things is unsustainable for our grandchildren and great grandchildren.

ChrisB2 probably threw a car battery into a lake after reading a suggestion that we leave some clean water for our grandchildren.

 

[drumsnbass]

Since you are raising a giant straw man argument about taxes, I would just like to add that I would prefer my tax money be spent on renewable energy than on propping up the oil industry with massive, endless subsidies and tax breaks in order to keep gasoline prices low. If you are really concerned about where your taxes are actually going now, you might want to include this in your outrage.

You DO realize when any large company with an essential product like oil is taxed more the cost is just passed along to you in higher prices, right? Or has that concept not entered your mind?

As to being taxed to 'change' the energy mix, I doubt that's what happens. History tells is the money disappears into a black hole if waste like Solyndra et sl.

 

[BawanaRik]

"Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.[1] It is a product of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. ....."

From what I read here there are waaaaaaay bigger threats to national sovereignty than this. Trans pacific partnership for one.

And fwiw I live in a country with a carbon tax which is designed to be revenue neutral. Power prices rose about 8% but all taxpayers are compensated annually through tax returns. I personally installed a 1.5kw solar array on my roof and now have a net reduction in my bill of around 25%. Which is the entire point. Less power use. Less co2. Costs less. Nobody lost their job. Nobody's liberties were infringed. And the economy didn't die a horrible death. So excuse me if I don't buy into this whole scare thing.

Talk bass is a multinational phenomenon. It's great to be able to access resources from all over the world.

 

[BawanaRik]

I just ask myself what's more likely. Is it more likely that that thousands of scientists, trained in different schools, from different countries, who really have little to gain financially, and have no actual political power, are involved in a global conspiracy to falsely convince people that the world climate is changing and that if we act now we can minimize the damage? Or is it more likely that a group of corporations along with their paid politicians, who have everything to gain, who are already in some cases global entities, and have large amounts of political power thru previously mentioned politicians, are misleading the public in order to maintain their wealth? If the scientific community was split 50/50, maybe I'd doubt their word but they're not.
Besides, even if they're wrong, what's really going to happen? I have cleaner air, water and drive a Prius instead of an Elantra?
It doesn't take a scientist to see that they way we do things is unsustainable for our grandchildren and great grandchildren.

I'm not sure about the comparable environmental impact of a Prius v an Elantra. Those 500 lb batteries are going to impacting the environment in a big when they stop working.

I think bio diesel has more of a possible future. It is renewable in an environmentally friendly fashion. And batteries aren't.

But I think people like to live large. The appeal of getting where one is going in a bio diesel Yaris getting 100 easily renewable MPG is out weighed by driving a massive heavy Prius.