U.N. panel: Climate change adjustments must be fast
By Nell Greenfieldboyce, NPR
A new report from the United Nations’ panel on climate change says major action is needed, and fast, if policymakers want to limit global warming to acceptable levels.
There’s an international target to control climate change: keeping the global temperature rise to just 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — that’s 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now says it’s technically possible to meet that goal. But doing so will require rapid, large-scale shifts in energy production and use.
Greenhouse gas emissions will have to drop 40 to 70 percent by 2050 — and then drop even more, to nearly zero by the end of this century — the report says.
The trouble is, emissions have actually been increasing. The panel notes that emissions grew more quickly between 2000 and 2010 than in each of the previous three decades.
Our EPA cannot produce data that justifies most of their own regulations. Why should we listen to anything the UN says that WE need to do to benefit the planet? It’s a racket.
Sure. Be prudent. Be conservative and judicious, not wasteful or reckless. But spending BILLIONS for no reason at all is bull.
http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/epa-concedes-we-can-t-produce-all-data-justifying-clean-air-rules#.U0yTPqCoUlU.facebook
That source is a complete joke. The study they use (to counter the fine particulate claim) is from a very inactive research group, I bet the cherry picked data and have contextual problems. I didn’t bother reading it because it was nested in multiple layers of BS (dawg -> that site -> that institute)
Since 1979, the first year that accurate satellite measurements were taken for monthly near surface global temperatures, the earth has warmed exactly 0.17 degrees Centigrade over the mean temperature. In addition, there has been no appreciable change (up or down) since 1998. The world isn’t coming to an end, but a whole lot of research scientists will be lining their pockets while scaring the public and bad mouthing other scientists who dare question their beliefs. Scientists are supposed to put forth theories and test their results over time. I’m all for clean air and health of the planet for me and my children, but I’m not losing sleep over this hype. The world didn’t end when the Mayan calendar ran out in 2012 and we won’t fry anytime soon from the weather. Anyone know how many millions of dollars Al Gore has pocketed selling carbon credits? Follow the money…
I knew more people who don’t understand the difference between weather and climate would show up.
“In addition, there has been no appreciable change (up or down) since 1998”
Did you know that you do not know how to properly define the most basic concept you are talking about?
Every single denier here can not answer the following question:
Define climate, use a number and a unit of time.
Hint: n for s -> S
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton
Since the time Mark Twain was here, not much has changed:
“Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. . .”
“Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge. . .”
I can plead to part of the latter, so I don’t have to be guilty of the former. . .
Read this month (April) ‘Scientific American’ pg.78, ‘False Hope’ on your faulty information as to ‘1998’, and the next 22 years. . .then I’m sure many will want to follow what you all say. . .
Dawg you should pause and take some time to understand the scientific method, and most of all the practice of hypothesis testing.
Your understanding of basic science is elementary, you are not in a place to talk about the big picture.
This is gibberish:
‘Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.’
And still the deniers lack data.
His. I would argue it is the Oil/Coal/Gas industries that “line their pockets” selling their products NOT the Scientific Community that has given us: Nuclear Weapons, Trips to the Moon, Vehicles on Mars, DNA Research etc..
Dog. Michael Crichton?! Really? He writes science fiction.
R4T, he ALSO got his M.D. from Harvard. Bet he was smarter than you are.
Dog. Stop with the schoolyard stuff. Crichton got his MD but never got his license to practice; and what does an MD know about Climatology? There was no “consensus science in the 15th century when the Church burned Bruno at the stake for claiming the Earth revolved around the Sun; now we know better.
EXACTLY!! You phony scientists want to burn everybody at the stake today who disagrees with YOUR consensus! You made my point. EVERYBODY knew the planets revolved around the earth. They were ALL WRONG.
Oh and so what if he didn’t bother getting a license to practice medicine? He still knew more about biological sciences and the scientific process than either you or I do.
Dogula, how old is the earth?
What do you mean exactly? The people who were supporting the theory that the earth was the center of the universe were doing so because they were blinded by RELIGION.
Just like you with the age of the earth.
Gary B-I’m afraid that the time for ‘removing all doubt’ has long passed for some-being wrong about everything their whole life does not even faze them-they even have their own news sites like fox and cns-bought and paid for by those that profit from their ignorance
The Global Warming crowd never fails to advance the narrative on this crock of crap.
Look folks, open your eyes and follow the money – the Global Warming scam is about more control over your lives with you ceding more of your liberty. Get a clue, and stand up for your rights.
A.B., they don’t want their rights. Rights require taking responsibility for their own choices. That’s very scary. Better to let government and its agencies make all the decisions for them. It’s safer that way.
@AB-I have followed the money…the deniers are funded by tax-dodging politician-buying billionaires and by oil and gas companies that take advantage of YOUR ignorance to game the political system. I find it funny that Dog waggles Michael Crighton’s Harvard pedigree as making his perspective as a scientist valid, but claims Obama’s Harvard law degree meaningless and an indication that he is an ignorant elitist (and a socialist and a Muslim, to boot). Seems like ‘burn em at the stake’ YELC’s pick and choose the the ‘science’ they agree with in order to justify their world view and their opinions. For better or worse folks -WE are the government. Even the willfully ignorant(and proud of it), such as AB and Dog, if we want to be.
So dawg, how old is the earth?
Why do you think it is that old? Science?
AB, can you accurately define climate yet?
No? Why not? Are you intellectually incapable of it, or do you know that using the true definition will expose you as ignorant and full of empty rhetoric?
No intelligent people take you seriously (see above).
Well, if we were allowed to actually SEE Mr. Obama’s credentials, I might believe them. But no, he has sealed everything. I wonder why?
So, I’m being FUNDED? By politician-buying billionaires? REALLY? Where’s muh money?? And Who is funding YOUR side? Other billionaires. Please, use a relevant argument.
And, Fish, WHY can’t you ever come up with a new question? You keep flailing that same question around like it’s a weapon. It’s not. It just makes you look unimaginative and dull.
It is a very relevant question.
Most people who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old are really really ignorant when it comes to science.
You are talking about science, and deny the vast majority of it.
I don’t think you are smart enough to even comprehend how dumb you are.
Evidence:
A:
“So, I’m being FUNDED?”
Straw man, attributing ideas to people that they didn’t express. Can’t win a debate in the real world because you have zero substance, so you create an imaginary point of view to take on. You do it all the time. It is intellectually dishonest and cowardly. And a logical fallacy.
B:
How old is the earth?
“You are talking about science, and deny the vast majority of it”
You’re making assumptions you know nothing about. Deal with the issue at hand, and leave YOUR prejudices out of it. You’re big on accusing others. Maybe you need to look at yourself.
In order to believe that the earth is thousands of years old you have to deny certain aspects of science. And because everything is built on physics, the result is that you then deny large chunks of science. If granite can only be a few thousand years old, that changes everything about the forces related to erosion and the forces that create quartz. If the earth is only a few years old then we have to question the nature of light, its speed, and its composition. How could we observe red shifts that are millions of light years away, if there has only been a few thousand years? At some point you would have to question the gravitational constant of the earth. When I say ‘have to’ I mean it as it would be illogical for us not to.
Get it?
Didn’t think so.
Take evolution for example. Physics are at the base of the chemistry of DNA, which is the vehicle for evolution. Physics, DNA, and evolution are inseparable. So if someone believe in evolution, except that humans didn’t evolve from lower species…. they are denying all of evolution. If one species evolved, then all species evolved. You can’t even use the word species if you deny evolution.
And you deny evolution.
There are logical consequences for believing in a young earth. I am not accusing you of anything, just pointing out the obvious, how modern science works.
You as an individual are not ‘being funded’…you lack the credentials in the scientific community to author papers, much less read, understand and review them; the business savvy to sit on boards of directors for Research Universities; and the eloquence to run for political office. Don’t fret too much-neither do I(well, I AM capable of fact checking). “Well, if we were allowed to actually SEE Mr. Obama’s credentials, I might believe them…” (Cue the ‘twighlight zone’ music…)Tinfoil hat time again for Dogula. You really shouldn’t post when your medication wears off. Yep-Willfully ignorant. Pretty much across the board. Why is it there’s an ascending shadow of a note of hysterical screaming in your responses whenever someone pushes back on your faulty logic and hateful rhetoric? You insult others then act offended when someone calls you on it. In particular you seem to have a hardon for Fish. You bait him then then play the ‘act offended’ card when he pushes back. “Deal with the issue at hand, and leave YOUR prejudices out of it. You’re big on accusing others. Maybe you need to look at yourself.” I won’t ask you how old the Earth is today. I will ask you, as we head towards that Christian Holiday you call Easter-named for an ancient Germanic fertility goddess whose sacred hare laid eggs- what Ayn Rand thought of Jesus’ philosophy and of Christians, and how that somehow managed to slip into bed with YOUR Christian worldview and with Christs teachings?
“Cold as Hell: The Chilling Effect of Global Warming” – Huffington Post
“Thank Global Warming for Freezing You Right Now” – The Daily Beast
“US polar vortex may be example of global warming” – The Guardian
“Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold” – Time
“How frigid ‘polar vortex’ could be result of global warming” – Christian Science Monitor
Does anybody else see the contradiction here which utterly debunks the entire global warming narrative?
Have you read these articles? What do they say? You forgot one that is linked through the first article you referenced:
-‘NASA points out: Cold Snaps Plus Global Warming Do Add Up.”
Your smug pride in your own ignorance is approaching legendary status.
If you are going to reference an article-or series of articles- at least read them first to see if they address your basic erroneous assumption: “Does anybody else see the contradiction here which utterly debunks the entire global warming narrative?”
(Spoiler alert-they ALL do) How do I know? I took fifteen minutes and read them all. Not a one of them is heavy reading.
BitterClinger: Define climate, use a number and a unit of time.
“Does anybody else see the contradiction here which utterly debunks the entire global warming narrative?”
No intelligent people who can define climate and have a basic grasp of science see it.
Only morons such as yourself.
HMMMMMM, RIGHT ON and thanks for putting the dog in the dog house. The hypocritical finger pointing is old and needed to be pointed out. You did a good job!
I would like to clarify some points in my hastily written post last night as I fought the Sandman for control of my eyes and thoughts. Regarding ‘BitterCling-on’s’ attempt at ‘cute erudition’: Each of those articles HE referenced addresses, even if briefly, the myth that a cold winter/polar vortex puts the lie to the ‘global warming narrative’. It is clear to me that he either did not read them, or is incapable of understanding what he reads. My guess is that he cherry picked by title alone, probably following a Meghan Kelly or ManCoulter lead. As far as ‘putting dog in the doghouse’…I really don’t dislike the person -every once in a while I(gasp) agree with her-and though I find most of her views and comments simplistic at best I have a certain amount of compassion for her. She sounds angry but doesn’t see how her own belief system(not making assumptions-it’s based on what she presents here and when she posted on TahoeDailyTribune as Dogwoman) and rhetoric has been used against her so she blames liberalism and the government for what so-called conservative politicians (corporate Machiavellians in truth) have done to her sacred Constitution. In my opinion.
HUMMMM, fair enough on your response, however it wouldnt matter what the topic is if it mentions science, government or liberal beliefs the dog and cj ab bc all have the same repetative responses that show their ignorance and close minded attitudes towards fixing problems. Its always the same. I just find it amazing that they want to continue the ignorant rants when it has been proven that they are wrong and still choose to follow their path. I guess the flat earth society will always have a few believers. Go figure…
@go figure…agreed. Trying to make sure I don’t become what I criticize, and still holding out hope that people are capable of changing themselves. And so you know, it’s ” Hmmm…” there are others who have posted using ‘Hmmm’ . Just sayin’.
Dog. I have no idea what you are writing about. The “concensus” of the 15th Century was that the Earth was the center of the universe; not the other way around. The only “phony” science being put forth is from the Oil/Gas/Coal industries that want to sell more of their product; obviously. The “phony” Oil/Gas/Coal science is similar to the tactic used by the Tobacco industry decades ago when it was known that Tobacco caused cancer.
Okay kids(AB, CJ, Cling-onBiter, Dog et al) this is one even you guys can read…most of the words are one and two syllables and the site is not beholden to any particular ideology near as I can tell.
http://www.livescience.com/19466-climate-change-myths-busted.html
They really need to start with a primer on defining climate (still never heard a definition from a denier), the scientific method, statistics and hypothesis testing.
Then probably something on identifying sources, credibility, peer review, citing, and why plagiarism is bad.
Cosa. They (the deniers) are too lazy to do any actual Scientific research.
Consider the following:
In 2013, the UK had the coldest spring since 1963.
In March 2013, Northern Japan received record snowfall–up to 16 feet just south of Aomori.
In October 2013, the worst frost in more than 80 years hit Chile and damaged 50 million boxes of fruit for export—damages were over $1 billion.
And my personal favorite, an expedition vessel full of Climate Change scientists became trapped in Antarctic sea ice 10 feet thick on Christmas Day 2013.
These facts are examples of global cooling from all over the world, and they are just a handful of examples.
The earth is cooling, and you haven’t seen anything yet.
Bitter, think of climate as the stock market long term trends. You are pointing out individual stocks that had bad days, or individual stocks that lost money during a quarter. However almost all stock analysts say that we are in a bull market, it is like almost every climate scientist saying that climate is warming from mankinds influence. Yet somehow you believe in a bear market, climate cooling and perhaps the Easter bunny?
The earth is like a stock market. . . gee, that sounds scientific.
Clinger doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate and thus continues to be a moron.
Dawg… How can you possibly have issue with what was said? Care to elaborate? Is your reading comprehension that bad that you came away with ‘The earth is like a stock market’? He was talking about the the importance of the temporal reference of observations, in this case weather and stock prices.
Speaking of temporal reference… how old is the earth anyway? Same question for Clinger.
As usual the group of climate change deniers shows up with some checker pieces and want to play chess.
Actually, Dog, Recall’s reference is a halfway decent analogy. Maybe going to the library and going into the kids section and getting some books on climate, weather and science(it’s okay, the nice lady at the counter will help you) would assist you and Bitter and AB gain a slight understanding of what the grown-ups are talking about. Take them home(The nice lady at the counter will let you). Read them slowly. Read them again. Talk it over with your therapist. Consider the possibility that you are INTENTIONALLY trying to be dense.
What I find amusing-almost… is the rigid clinging to inaccurate concepts and definitions from you and Bitter and others of your ilk. I know I’m being condescending, but Jesus(!) you guys are being ridiculous!
From one of the referenced articles:
“Myth: Ice covering much of Antarctica is expanding, contrary to the belief that the ice cap is melting due to global warming.
Science: The argument that ice is expanding on Antarctica omit the fact that there’s a difference between land ice and sea ice, climate scientists say. “If you are talking about the Antarctic ice sheet, we expect some gain in accumulation in the interior due to warmer, more moisture-laden air, but increased calving/ice loss at the periphery, primarily due to warming southern oceans,” climate scientist Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, told LiveScience. The net change in ice mass is the difference between this accumulation and peripheral loss. “Models traditionally have projected that this difference doesn’t become negative (i.e. net loss of Antarctic ice sheet mass) for several decades,” Mann said, adding that detailed gravimetric measurements, which looks at changes in Earth’s gravity over spots to estimate, among other things, ice mass. These measurements, Mann said, suggest the Antarctic ice sheet is already losing mass and contributing to sea level rise.
Now for sea ice, this type of ice is influenced by year-to-year changes in wind directions and changes in ocean currents. For sea ice, it’s tricky to identify a clear trend, Mann said.”
http://www.livescience.com/19466-climate-change-myths-busted.html
Humm. The 15th Century Coal Lovers Club cannot figure out why Sea Water has a lower freezing point then Fresh Water. Or, what happens when that Fresh Water bleeds into locals surrounding Antarctic.
I’m just curious about what my “scientific” critics will have to say to this person?http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/04/outside_the_consensusnotes_of_.html
It makes no difference what you say Dog, free speech, debate, discussion & dialogue is not permitted amongst the Warmistas. And facts? They’re just stubborn things that get in the way of agenda.
I remember MTBE vividly, one of the greatest disasters of the environmental movement. It was hailed as a panacea to air pollution. Until it started showing up in our water supplies nationwide, particularly in California.
Today we learn that ethanol is worse for the environment than plain old gasoline, you know, the good ‘ole standard that gets you down the road, brings food from farm to market, and enables us to live a standard of living above “Little House on the Prairie”. But the Warmistas will never be happy until YOU can no longer afford petroleum products.
The biggest single polluter in the world is Barack Obama. His “carbon footprint” exceeds that of any individual. Do you see the “Greens” screaming foul? No, of course not.
Do as they say, not as they do.
Pretty much what I thought: your first instinct was to make fun of the man’s name. Typical.
The United Nations? The organization that stands by and does nothing when genocidal acts occur, is an organization that we’re supposed to trust? You expect them to do something about a problem?!
Even if one is an ardent unquestioned believer in Human Caused Climate Change, you should use a different source!
And also if you are one of those believers, you should try to intellegently retort, not name call, those that have a different view. That makes one more believable and willing to listen to your views!
No-it wasn’t my first thought…I pasted it in later, after I did a little research on NAS. Gotta admit, it’s funny!
My apologies…I accidentally shut my computer down while cutting and pasting and deleted the original post…I shall try to reconstruct it from memory. I think what Dog was referring to was my tongue in cheek comments about the author of her referenced article’s name(his name is Peter Wood), and whether his parents thought it would make things ‘hard on him’, prompt him to be a ‘stand up guy’ and grow ‘up proud’. Just to be clear, I read Mr. Wood’s article, and didn’t think much of it. I decided to do some research into the organization he is president of: NAS. They are funded by a number conservative-leaning groups, and tend to support a right wing agenda regarding university policies. What I would say to him would revolve around the definition of truth and the funding of scientific research and explore the concept that control of information has become an extremely POLITICAL event. I would then ask Dog whether she even read the article, how she came across it(i.e. was she cherry picking for articles to support her agenda?)
Hmmm, how convenient for you. You totally deleted the post that made you sound like the petty, mean-spirited follower that you are. Now you’ve tried to make yourself sound better.
As I’ve said before, anybody who claims that the science is settled, and therefore denigrates anybody whose opinion differs, is no scientist.
Hey Dog and AB, 2013 was the 4th hottest year since records began. MTBE is used as an Octane boosting agent obtained from fossil fuels, methanol/methane and isobutylene/oil or gas. Remember, it wasn’t the USE of MTBE that was the environmental problem, it was the leaking gasoline storage tanks under gas stations that Chevron, Exxon, Texaco, BP etc ignored for decades. However, your buddy, Tom Delay, tried to protect the fossil fuel industry from MTBE groundwater contamination litigation in 2003… but failed.
@dog…it was an honest mistake…i kept in the juicy meanspirited parts. I never claimed to be a scientist. I DO know how to read scientific data… up to a certain degree and I know how to fact check. Listen….you and Bitter and AB are in WAY over your heads on this. Find another cause.
“As I’ve said before, anybody who claims that the science is settled, and therefore denigrates anybody whose opinion differs, is no scientist.”
That makes zero sense.
Deniers, every single on of them who post here, are not denigrated because their are against the consensus. None of them can properly identify ‘climate’ data, their sources are rubbish, they cherry pick data, and are generally ignorant. I’ve caught a number of them plagiarizing, from really terrible sources.
Just one of you do this for me: tell me the different between weather and climate, use a number and a unit of time. It is really not that hard, it is the most basic concept in this discussion and you should excuse yourself from the discussion until you can define the terms.
Until you have an elementary understanding of science don’t expect any intelligent people to take you seriously.
Yes it is settled. The earth is more than a few thousand years old.
Climate change is real, humans are the primary cause.
” those that have a different view. ”
Their view/opinion is not a scientific fact. Especially when they can’t even define climate. They are called ignorant because they are in fact ignorant.
Fish, you proved me right once again. Thank you!
Talking about scientific research and rendering an opinion about science are two different things. Much to my amusement AB, Bitter and Dogula don’t seem to make such a finessed distinction…they are too busy with conspiracy theories. It is important to note that not all science, and not all opinions convey an equal amount of truth, or address the most salient aspects of a given thing. It is a right wing tactic to try to confuse environmental science by pretending ALL perspectives deserve equal consideration. It is FLAWED reasoning.
AB, no I haven’t.
Can you define climate yet?
No?
Then leave.
Fortunately, Fish, fascists such as yourself do not yet have the power to silence the opposing view. He doesn’t have to leave just because you say so.
This site belongs to Kae Reed. If SHE decides to boot any of us, that’s her decision. Not yours.
Oh I see how that works Señor Fish, those who don’t tow the party line with the environmental brown shirts are to be silenced.
Greens are the new Reds
Cosa, ever since you first asked the definition of climate of me, and that was well over 2yrs. ago, I stated clearly that I knew the answer, but didn’t feel the need to ‘jump’ because an anonymous blogger wanted me to!
And if I was lying, and I wasn’t, (I needed 12 units of science to get my Bachelors from that right-wing biased institution, Berkeley) I could’ve looked the answer up.
Anyone else that blogs on here could also look it up if they didn’t know the answer, but I’m sure they don’t feel the need to jump either.
Though, someone did once post on here the answer you so desire. I would think that cause the debate to move on, but oh well.
Anyway, I respect the fact that many intelligent people (including close friends) firmly and unquestion-
ably believe in the Human Caused Climate Change narrative. They just shouldn’t use the United Nations, (which lets China, the biggest contributor of the worlds’ pollutants, block the most basic of humanitarian missions) as its source!
he is a good article on consensus, from a source you might think is OK.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2014/02/27/the-unscientific-consensus/
OK Parker, AB, dawg, etc fill in the missing parts:
n1 u ‘s of weather data define n2 unit of climate.
n = number u = a unit
You once said something like ‘last winter was cold’ as evidence against AGW…. so I have to question everything you have to say.
Keep the answers to yourselves, homework is due on Wednesday.
At the risk of being called a ‘heel’, I gotta ask… ‘how does one ‘tow’ a party line?’ Who foots the bill for that?
I NEVER, EVER, said ‘last winter was cold’ as evidence for, or against anything!
I made wisecracks about how when there would be cold spells, as there was in much of this country this year, the media’s reporting of Climate Change would change.
Thing Fish, count me as another who finds your repetitive question lame. Interesting that the wording is always a little different. A sane person would have simply saved the text and then just re-pasted it ad nauseum. Instead you keep composing over and over and over again, as if it’s fresh each time. Until you provide an answer in this format I will feel smugly superior to you.
‘ A sane person would have simply saved the text and then just re-pasted it ad nauseum’
Yes, I know how to code, if that is what you were wondering. I can’t inject scripts into this website and if I could I wouldn’t.
>>>print ‘%s’ * 1000 % climate.define
You missed the point completely. The question is important. You can’t talk about statistics with someone who operates on a different definition of basic terms such as ‘mean’. And yes, when it all comes down to it we are talking about statistics here. n where s -> S. Intro to Statistics, that is on the first test. I am sorry if that ‘smart’ talk offends you, but it is really basic stuff. And you know what? All climate change deniers can’t answer that question and have no idea what n s -> S means, they are ignorant.
What is really annoying people trying to talk about science who can’t even define the concept that is central to the discussion.
I am glad you are annoyed, I don’t care. It is pathetic that I even have to ask that question. I am not proud of myself that I know the answer, it should be expected of every person who contemplates the idea of climate.
Parker I’ve called you out on plenty of BS. You are back peddling, you never explained yourself like that before. You cited the one scientist on climate science that ended up redacting their research, you deny that too, will again, and I found the post recently and called you out on it again. And that pipe club bs. I can’t believe people fall for that.
In science, there are ‘rules’. Don’t whine when people call you out for not abiding by them. You are on the internet, remaining ignorant is a choice.
Are people really this dumb? I wouldn’t believe that they are if I didn’t read it here with my own eyes. It is fascinating.
Here you go parker.
“Dogwoman you said it!! Just to add, if anyone who’s lived in Tahoe these last two snowy, cold Springs, especially if you were outside trying to support the Amgen race, still believes in Global Warming, then you might as well believe the Earth is flat!!”
https://www.laketahoenews.net/2011/06/the-reality-of-global-climate-change/
Deny that.
Cosa, first when I gave you a scientist that you belittled, I gave you a second scientist you didn’t dispute. Fact!! And I could’ve come up with more, as you may say they’re in the extreme minority, or they’re financed by the oil industry, but I gave multiple scientists. FACT!
And when you belittled the one scientist for being under the influence of the oil industry, I pointed out how many scientists that are so sure of the Human Caused Climate Change storyline are getting govt. checks, and have their own incentives for pushing their own ‘lines’.
But kudos to you for you researching that old story! You clearly have more time than I do. Shows how long you’ve been asking that question. But if my sarcasm or wisecracking didn’t or hasn’t come thru, well that old story proves it!
Read all the comments on that old story. After the cold seasons, where was anyone in the blog willing to proclaim there was Global Warming?!
No backtracking at all!
“but I gave multiple scientists.” That were all BS.
“But if my sarcasm or wisecracking didn’t or hasn’t come thru,” Yeah, because your use of punctuation is terrible.
By the way it took me longer to copy/paste the link and text than it took me to find it. It is taking me longer to make sense of the following gibberish:
“Read all the comments on that old story. After the cold seasons, where was anyone in the blog willing to proclaim there was Global Warming?!”
What? You seriously went to Berkley and write sentences like that? Two years of seasonal weather observations is not enough to make a statement on climate…..
If you are being sarcastic it doesn’t come though at all. It is hard to be subtly sarcastic in text, most people can’t do it. So I avoid it. If I do, I make use of snarkmarks (~?, ~s, :P) or end with /sarcasm.
‘wow, that was a well punctuated, clearly worded sentence ~?’. You love using too much punctuation! Why don’ you try it! Rewrite something you said using snark marks so I can get some idea of how you write.
So were you being sarcastic or do you believe in everything you said. I didn’t know they had a BA in Literature with a concentration on Trolling at Berkely ~?.
‘Commonsense (which again says Cold Winters refutes Global Warming!’
No, no it doesn’t.
Cosa, your personal attacks illustrate the weakness of your arguments! Period! If you believe in the Human Caused Climate Change narrative, when someone says they don’t believe it, or question it, you should simply state: Here’s the reasons you should-….
Calling names and throwing insults, instead of making a rationale case, only causes people to greater question the whole Climate Change story.
Two cases in point: First, the old story you cited. I made my sarcastic comment. And rather than rationally question or disagree with it, you did your normal insult rant.
Then Second, right here. You go after my grammar, punctuation and sentence structure, and then you don’t even spell Berkeley correctly!
Moral of the story: Even if one believes in the Human Caused Climate Change narrative, the United Nations is a poor source to cite!
Parker, CosaPescado is merely representative of the liberal element in our nation. Sadly, they’ve turned into modern day fascists.
Today is Earth Day 2014. We have the highest ice levels on Great Lakes for this date in recorded history, the lowest tornado totals through date here in the United States, global sea ice above average, and southern hemisphere ice pack at a record high.
So much for Global Warming folks!
A new paper from SPPI and CO2 Science reviews the scientific literature on the Medieval Warm Period in Upper North America, and concludes, “…these published results now join the many other similar results, from all around the world, where it can be seen that the Medieval Warm Period was not only a global phenomenon, but that its peak warmth was very likely significantly greater than that of the present day.”
How’s that manmade Global Warming working out for you?
It’s embarrassing that this debate is even occurring.
@Common Sense-Yeah…I agree. A brief search of the names SPPI and CO2Science reveal their bias and funding(Exxon and A.L.E.C.). People need to rethink throwing articles out there that were created created by politically ‘bought’ pseudo-scientists.
President Barack Obama is marking the 44th Earth Day with a carbon-emitting splurge, spending more than 15 hours aboard Air Force One and 15 minutes aboard Marine One.
Not including his motorcades in Oso, Washington, the site of a recent devastating mudslide, his trip will consume an estimated 35,565 gallons of fuel.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the statistics arm of the Department of Energy, burning each gallon of fuel emits 21.1 pounds of carbon dioxide, bringing the president’s Earth Day carbon footprint to more than 375.7 tons.
The Obama Regime is the biggest individual polluter nationally. Yet there is ZERO outrage from the liberal establishment.
The regime issued a sweeping online essay calling for renewed awareness of threats from global warming.
“Our health, our economy, our security, and our planet’s future are once again threatened by pollution and environmental degradation…” the White House’s official blog claimed.
“Our climate is changing, and that change is being driven by human activity. Every year, the United States pumps millions of tons of carbon dioxide pollution and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”
“Earth Day is about taking action…” Obama declared today.
Dear Leader’s trip will have more than an environmental cost. Consider the $228,288 from the taxpayer-funded U.S. Treasury for every hour AF-1 is in the air.
It’s events like this that completely discredit the Global Warming crowd and their fear mongering.
Cite your sources.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610431/Obama-burn-35-000-gallons-fuel-Earth-Day-emitting-375-TONS-carbon-dioxide.html
The Daily Mail a terrible place to get news.
AB: More plagiarism from a terrible source:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/04/review-paper-finds-medieval-warm-period.html
Typical denier BS. Rubbish sources, intellectual dishonesty, scientific illiteracy.
Define climate.
OK Parker, so you failed at sarcasm over the internet, no big deal, it doesn’t translate well. Try using a snark mark, highlight your sarcasm when it is missed (it easily is), or just don’t do it. You say that was all just sarcasm, I am fine with that. For the record, I have my doubts. Take some responsibility as the communicator.
I’ve made my case many times. Like I said earlier, if you are talking about statistics and it becomes obvious that the person you are talking to is not operating using the same definition of ‘mean’, etc, that needs to be addressed.
Look at AB. They think that one season of weather observations is a legitimate reason to question the entire body of research that supports climate change.
30 years of weather data are needed to define 1 unit of climate.
Why? In statistics the standard deviation from of mean of a sample can be used to approximate the standard deviation for the population, when n, the number of samples is 30. In some cases it is 31, because other equations use n-1 in testing.
That is how it works, there is no other option. I am not boasting and showing off, this is basic stuff and nothing to take pride in. Anyone who discusses matters of science should hold themselves to this low standard and people who don’t should not be tolerated.
So now that we know the definition, and why, we can identify AB as ignorant. Extremely ignorant, and highly partisan. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are paid to do what they do. Yes, deniers fund internet commenters to derail the spread of information. Notice how ‘skeptics’ don’t really put out research. They know they are beat in science and there are no data to support them. So they open the floodgates of BS. What is worse, calling someone stupid or propagating intellectual dishonesty, disinformation and lies?
A lot of people who believe in climate change don’t know the exact number, but they know that it is more than 1. Most people guess 10. And when they learn it is 30 (or 31), any of them who remember basic stats goes ‘ooohhhhhh yeah that makes sense’.
Ignorant people say ‘you are part of a global conspiracy to make al gore the next pope’. And bring up Obama’s recent trip as if it is relevant.
Av8rgal, similar to the spectacle witnessed here last summer at the Tahoe Summit event. All those politicians (Al Gore included) flying in to campaign and lecture us all on ‘climate change’ and the need for stricter conservation measures and more funding . After which they each flew away on their individual planes and/or motorcades to go to lunch.
The sheer hypocrisy of the Warmistas is all you need to know to determine that this entire Global Warming hoax is a conjured up desire for more government control.
If they were so opposed to people’s carbon footprint, they’d demand that Obama stop globe trotting in Air Force One.
But you see, that’s OK, that’s justifiable carbon dioxide, because Obama is down for the struggle.
Darn. A.B. discovered our ruse. The deception is over folks. He figured out that we are pretending to be concerned about climate change because we like the government telling us what to do. In fact, we simply can’t function without the government telling us what to do.
Good thing they have stop signs because I’d just go crashing into people and cars and bicycles rather than be concerned about everyone’s (and my own) safety!
“If they were so opposed to people’s carbon footprint, they’d demand that Obama stop globe trotting in Air Force One.”
False Choice logical fallacy.
What, Fish, the ruler of the free world doesn’t know how to telecommute?
Be real. 90% of his non-vacation travel is about fund raising and campaigning, even though he can’t run for President again. He’s constantly trying to sell obamacare (or something) in order to bump up his ‘legacy’. If those guys actually cared about environmental issues, they’d Skype.
And how does that change the data that supports climate change? It doesn’t. The false choice is a logical fallacy.
“If those guys actually cared about environmental issues, they’d Skype.”
Same thing, false choice. You don’t have any problem with your flawed logic, do you? You should. Go read up on logical fallacies.
We’re going to flush the fish right here & now.
Please señor fish, do share with us the global warming agenda. What is the solution to your contrived problem? Please tell us how you’re going to stop the rising sea levels, melting ice caps, droughts, heat waves, and mass extinctions.
I can’t answer that question because the problem is not contrived.
A contrived problem does not need a solution.
So here is a stupid answer to your stupid question:
We will have a science challenge. Current scientists vs pseudoscientists, your brand of conservatives, creationists, the anti science crowd, climate change deniers, chem trail believers, etc. The challenge will be to but a manned capsule into space. After the non science people’s craft explodes on the launch pad, they will all be banished to an alternate dimension that is an exact copy of this one in its current state, minus all of the scientific knowledge, because those people who do not support it do not deserve to benefit from it. See how long they last, study their breakdown, see if intelligence is nature or nurture or something in between, and move on in peace.
Caso, your sarcstic reply still does not answer the question on how to solve this issue. If what your trying is that science will provide an answer and that all 7 billion people will band together hold each other hands sing kumbaya, then you may be a little naive. People being people will never get together enough to look at the long term. It is so very amusing to read these post from people who will never change their positions a argue. Dog and caso will never move their positions one iota. Why do you even try?
True, Relo. I will never move closer to the Fish’s idea of utopia because I believe in individual liberty, and he is a collectivist statist. Never the twain shall meet.
Reloman, there is no solution. The whole conversation is a waste of time because there is absolutely no way to significantly reduce fossil fuel use without simultaneously throwing the economy into depression.
Cosa and others are going to argue that it is all because of corporate greed, but it has nothing to do with that. If costs go up, demand goes down. If demand goes down, jobs go down. It aint any more complicated than that.
The only solution is the discovery and commercialization of a substitute energy source that is equal in cost.
Dawg, so if I am a statist (I know what that means but have no idea how you are attempting to use the word given your history), that would make you an anarchist. You should check out Somalia. Sure it isn’t a true anarchy, but it is close. Statism and individual liberty and not completely mutually exclusive. Unless you are operating on some twisted definition of the word.
Relo I don’t have to move in my position because it is solid. It is science based, I can’t. Where have I been wrong here? Are you defending the deniers?
The best we can do right now is plan for a different future. That is the focus of most of the research right now. We have probably missed the boat on preventing the effects, and will probably miss the opportunity to slow them down. Some people take issue with spending money on planning. That is really bad news.
“Cosa and others are going to argue that ”
Thanks for ‘putting words in my mouth’. I didn’t know you were one of those types. That is a dogwoman tactic, I thought you were better than that. That is really dishonest. We don’t need more of that nonsense. Knock it off.
Beat that straw man. Your sure did beat on ol imaginary thing fish real good.
Here is another lesson in intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacy:
Dawg just used the phrase “Collective Statism” as if it is a real word that has an apolitical definition, such as ‘Collectivism’, and ‘Statism’. Actually it is a phrase that is used in political rhetoric and its definition is essentially ‘everything I am against’. It is just name calling, might as well call me a doo-doo headist, the word has no real meaning. Google it, see how the phrase is used. You will find it in a lot of political hyperbole.
It is a Straw Man tactic.
Anyone learning anything?
Without petroleum products, your life would look a lot like Little House on the Prairie.
I don’t see fish offering to go there, and I haven’t seen one Warmista yet that gave up travel to save the planet.
Lead by example Fish, or if you choose not to, Clinger and Dawg nailed you for what you are.
Well Cosa, prove me wrong. Whats the solution that does not involve another great depression.
moral hazard-an economic depression is inevitable because of corporatism created by reaganomics-with or without climate changes-people like you that have been wrong about economics your whole life are also wrong about this issue-no surprise to me that you will never admit it-you don’t need a econ degree to see the stupidity of the supply siders and science deniers
Fish, I don’t know where you get your ideas, but they’re off the wall. I called you a ‘collectivist statist’, not a ‘collective statist’. (Aren’t you always questioning MY reading ability?) Look up collectivist. Look up statist. You are both of those things. And I don’t know why you’d consider it name calling. Be proud of what you believe. I’m proud of what I believe.
Fish is certainly a statist. No arguing that point.
I’m still waiting for Fish to answer the questions that were posed to him. He seems to be at a loss of words.
AB:
False dilemma. I refuse to take any time considering anything based on logical fallacy.
‘Well Cosa, prove me wrong. Whats the solution that does not involve another great depression.’
I don’t know, that is a big question and that is not my area of study. Any answer I can find, you can find, so go do it? I do know that we can plan for the future and avoid greater problems. And we need to get this doubt of climate change behind us. Doing nothing will
Dawg, that doesn’t change anything, and like I said it doesn’t matter what word you use because you are using it to say something bad about me, using me as part of the definition. I’ll break it down later. This is a reading comprehension thing, conceptually the phrase you used doesn’t matter at all. Look at the context of how ‘collectivist statist’ is used. It is all hyperbolic partisan nonsense. Stative-Collectivist, Collective Statist, Collectivist Statist, Pojama People, doesn’t matter. The phase has no real meaning, no history, and the only example is the when you refer to the person you are labeling. Unlike Collectivist and Statist alone, which have a definition, history, and example.
And at the end it is all part of straw man BS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism
That is a pretty big concept for you to take on. Which apolitical part are you using? It doesn’t matter, it is total nonsense and too broad, I’ll get to that later.
I’ve seen this a lot recently after someone pointed it out. Libertarians tend to make up these terms that sound smart and specific, but they are wishy-washy and completely unclear.
Collectivist Statist is a combination of two very broad ideas. A broad idea combined with another broad idea doesn’t lead to something more specific. It leads to something even more broad. See the problem there?
Here is a break down of your sentence: ‘(we are opposites)… I believe in individual liberty, and he is a collectivist statist. ‘
I am X and therefore good, you are Y, and therefore bad because good is already taken by X.
See any problems there? It’s another logical fallacy.
I must accept that in your illogical (false) world, I am bad. And that is fine because logic is good. Being bad in a false world makes you good. Simple.
” I’m proud of what I believe.”
Good for you. Don’t let your beliefs get in the way of knowledge and reason and you should be fine. I am not content with my current knowledge and am constantly working to expand it.
“He seems to be at a loss of words.”
I was studying programming.
Have you done anything to make yourself better recently?
Remember, you all need to define climate as it relates to weather using your own words, due at 5pm.
Please take it easy with the logical fallacies people, it’s getting really old.
” I am not content with my current knowledge and am constantly working to expand it ”
Good for you. But it’s funny how I’m not afraid to admit that I believe what I believe, and you CLAIM to be learning new stuff, but all you do is pick on everybody else’s ideas.
Nice to see you’re learning programming. I’m a founding member of a new liberty website, and we’re testing the beta version now. Once it’s up and available to the general public, you should check it out. You might learn something. Else.
Wow. Clinger and Dog and AB in a race to be the biggest bottomfeeder. Maybe the ‘patriot without a country’ Cliven Bundy can help with your new liberty website(I can’t wait!). It is clear to me that opinions and facts are synonymous to you. Regarding Global Warming the shame is that our grandchildren will bear the brunt of our collective inactivity.
Our grandchildren will also bear the brunt of the current Administration’s gross expenditure of their future earnings. But that doesn’t seem to bother you?
Of course it bothers me. Making assumptions aren’t you? I thought that Congress is the one that appropriates our money. I am bothered too by the administration before it that started this cycle, spent the surplus, bankrupted the nation(except for the 1%) and plunged the human economy into a recession. Your selective memory of the past, selective vision of the present and single-minded hatred of Obama is ridiculous.
‘you CLAIM to be learning’
Always, it never ends. Coding is great because it never ends. I hope I don’t end up doing web design, I respect those who do it but I don’t envy them. Advice on getting a good web product: be a good customer. I am sure there are some blogs out there about getting the most from your designer. Save them time and they will have more time to work for you and meet their desired profit margin.
‘but all you do is pick on everybody else’s ideas.’
Good information informs good decisions. Flawed logic destroys information. Good ideas need to be logical and supported by information. My intentions are good, what I end up doing, not always good.
@Cosa…It seems like Dog likes to whiningly insinuate some intentionally evil and manipulative conspiracy behind others posting. According to her, you ‘claim’ to be learning, I ‘conveniently’ deleted my post, global waring is a liberal scam, dinosaurs are 4000 years old…I bet there’s a black liberal fascist democrat communist socialist Muslim alien behind every tree. Maybe that’s why she gets hysterical. She is ‘proud of what she believes’…and doesn’t appear willing to examine her own opinions and the beliefs that inform them-or discuss the age of the earth. I was taught that when people are ‘proud’ of being ‘ignorant’ they behave in an arrogant manner(Think Sarah Palin). It’s like our own little slice of Texas or Oklahoma here in TahoeSouth!
Cosa. These Science deniers are beyond hope. They don’t believe in theories like gravity, speed of light, dna, splitting atoms, evolution etc because they can’t “see” them or comprehend them. They see weather and confuse it with climate. They question actual Scientific results and the motives of the Scientific community as a whole, but refuse to even consider the misinformation coming from the Oil/Coal/Gas producers and their profit motives. Fifty-Eight percent (58%) of Republicans believe humans were created in the last 10,000 years and nobody can tell them different. The dumbing down of Science in America indeed.