Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funded by the very same Koch brothers mentioned in my previous post... shocking! C'mon isn't there any credible deniers? I'll be waiting...
And here's an interesting read about climate change consensus from NASA citing that 97% number, including statements confirming consensus from 18 of the largest scientific associations:
Who am I to believe concerning climate science? The hundreds of organizations - consisting of thousands of career scientists - providing massive amounts of supporting data evidence and rational... or the Koch brothers and their minions who only can argue on strawmen and semantics?
My point is many brilliant scientist disagree. I personally am not convinced. It's become a political and mainstream issue and it seems to me there is no clear consensus on the data or the data collection or the far our predictions. That's all I'm saying. I found these 15 scientists in this article to be credible.
My point is many brilliant scientist disagree. I personally am not convinced. It's become a political and mainstream issue and it seems to me there is no clear consensus on the data or the data collection or the far our predictions. That's all I'm saying. I found these 15 scientists in this article to be credible.
Yet you keep posting disingenuous articles. First a Koch Industries funded article, now an article comparing the top 10 consensus scientists vs the top 5 skeptics? Don't you think that is a little too "Buzz Feed"/tabloid? Especially, when the actual divide is more like 3% to 97%?
I mean look... it's good to question things. Certainly big, important things like climate change. However, that is precisely my frustration. This is SOOOO important and yet folks like you refuse to give it the attention it deserves. Instead, you reserve yourself to the sidelines where you arm-chair critic. You claim "it's become too political" and yet retreat to political tactics and talking points.
Forget agreeing how to solve the problem... you can't even acknowledge there is a problem.
Edit:
By the way... not sure if you're following the Kanye/Trump thing, but following in his ranty good spirit... cheers.
Yet you keep posting disingenuous articles. First a Koch Industries funded article, now an article comparing the top 10 consensus scientists vs the top 5 skeptics? Don't you think that is a little too "Buzz Feed"/tabloid? Especially, when the actual divide is more like 3% to 97%?
I mean look... it's good to question things. Certainly big, important things like climate change. However, that is precisely my frustration. This is SOOOO important and yet folks like you refuse to give it the attention it deserves. Instead, you reserve yourself to the sidelines where you arm-chair critic. You claim "it's become too political" and yet retreat to political tactics and talking points.
Forget agreeing how to solve the problem... you can't even acknowledge there is a problem.
Edit:
By the way... not sure if you're following the Kanye/Trump thing, but following in his ranty good spirit... cheers.
I'm sure you didn't bother to read about any of the 15 scientists, they are all well regarded. Seems like you're the one that is not open minded about the other sides discussion. No political tactics here just looking at those sides of the information. Not sure how old you are but in my lifetime they predicted I'll kinds of doom and gloom, coming or you sage in the 70s, global warming and no climate change when it didn't fit the global warming agenda. So yeah I'll continue to gather information.
^ sorry bad voice messaging
m sure you didn't bother to read about any of the 15 scientists, they are all well regarded. Seems like you're the one that is not open minded about the other sides discussion. No political tactics here just looking at both sides of the information. Not sure how old you are but in my lifetime they predicted I'll kinds of doom and gloom, coming Of ice age in the 70s, global warming and then climate change when it didn't fit the global warming agenda. So yeah I'll continue to gather information.
Last edited by 1watertiger; 10-12-2018 at 05:26 AM..
Reason: Spelling
Wow... this is Ohio? You guys have to be trolling. A few Koch funded scientists equal up with thousands of non-industry funded climate scientists? Thousands of career researchers are more prone to corruption and propaganda then political activists like the Koch Brothers who stand to make $$$$$? And your justification for such disparity between a handful of contrarians and thousands of scientists? A massive conspiracy? Are we children living in make believe world, or adults? How far down this rabbit-hole are you willing to go?
Quote:
Many years ago, the majority of scientists said the earth was flat.
"Many years ago" as in 500 years? Pre-Magellan circumnavigating the globe? Before there were legit scientists even? What are you talking about?
Are certain counties in NE Ohio still running that E check nonsense? What a sham. Do they not understand that all the people who frequent Norwalk and Thompson raceway are not a bunch of tree huggers and that they have zero interest in running EGR and catalytic converters on their street cars which restrict horsepower? If you want to help the environment, plant a tree. Stop infringing on classic hobbies like auto racing. Nothing is better in that hobby than the look on their faces when you win the trophy and they ask, “where’s your trailer so we can put the trophy in there” and you reply “what trailer, I drove here to run this 8 sec 1/4 mike pass and now I’m entering into the car show to win that also.” Amazing. Let’s talk about it.
My point is many brilliant scientist disagree. I personally am not convinced. It's become a political and mainstream issue and it seems to me there is no clear consensus on the data or the data collection or the far our predictions. That's all I'm saying. I found these 15 scientists in this article to be credible.
I'm sure you didn't bother to read about any of the 15 scientists, they are all well regarded. Seems like you're the one that is not open minded about the other sides discussion. No political tactics here just looking at those sides of the information. Not sure how old you are but in my lifetime they predicted I'll kinds of doom and gloom, coming or you sage in the 70s, global warming and no climate change when it didn't fit the global warming agenda. So yeah I'll continue to gather information.
There are no remaining credible, peer-reviewed scientific theories that dispute the onslaught of man-made climate change. If you actually are aware of any, please post a link.
Nobody disputes the obvious reality that in the past 125 years, the burning of fossil fuels has grown at an exponential rate. The increase even in the last 75 years has been monstrous, as globalization has lifted fossil fuel consumption in Third World nations.
Despite the now proven warnings of climate change scientists, the world's reliance on fossil fuels continues to grow, with solar and wind energy still rather insignificant on a global basis, though growing rapidly, but much more slowly than is needed to prevent a global environmental holocaust, now well underway.
As for your list of scientists who are climate change skeptics, likely the most serious skeptical theory advanced concerned the impact of clouds on global warming. It was formulated by Richard Lindzen, number four on your list of leading scientists who are climate change skeptics. Lindzen indeed was a highly accredited and accomplished climate scientist, but his "iris infrared" theory has been widely discredited by subsequent peer-reviewed research. Lindzen even admitted several of his papers contained "stupid mistakes."
<<Former MIT scientist Richard Lindzen (one of the most often cited, and most often wrong contrarian climate scientists) was among the first to argue that clouds act as a climate thermostat. He developed a hypothesis in 2001 that as the atmosphere warms, the area covered by cirrus clouds will contract like the iris of an eye to allow more heat to escape into space, thus slowing global warming. His ‘iris hypothesis’ was quickly disproved by subsequent research, but that hasn’t stopped climate contrarians from continuing to make the argument.>>
Richard Muller, a renown Berkely physicist, was one of the most prominent climate change skeptics in the early 21st century. As such he attracted the attention of the multi-billionaire Koch brothers, Republican mega-donors who financed the assault on man-made climate science, and almost single-handedly converted the Republican Party into a flock of man-made climate change science deniers (perhaps an act of political suicide for Republicans over the next two decades as the ravages of fossil fuel burning become increasingly evident).
So, given Muller's prominence as a man-made climate change skeptic, a Koch charitable trust funded a research effort by Muller, which the Koch brothers apparently hoped would derail man-made climate change. Unfortunately for the Koch brothers, Muller valued his scientific reputation more than research funding, and issued one of the most important and definitive mea culpas in the man-made climate change science debate, which now has effectively ended in the scientific community, with the Muller team's research report having been perhaps the climatic final battle in the climate change science war.
<<In an opinion piece in Saturday’s New York Times titled “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic,” Muller writes:
“Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”>>
Is the demise and discrediting of man-made climate change scientists so surprising given the massive amounts of fossil fuels that being burned annually???
Why would anybody expect no seriously negative consequences from such massive amounts of pollution???
Although not yet on the front lines of the consequences of the man-made climate change, Ohio is still being both transformed and financially impacted by man-made climate change.
In Ohio, we are seeing most detrimentally the slow destruction of our maple sugar industry and the threat of losing in this century maple trees and likely other tree species (beech kill-offs seem to be proliferating) that are the anchors of our beautiful forests.
Ohio also is losing federal funding as hundreds of billions annually are being spent in other more afflicted states to fight the environmental consequences of man-made climate change. Massive federal deficit spending is on a collision course with the increasing financial burdens of man-made climate change, already evident in shrinking federal infrastructure spending on an inflation-adjusted basis.
In the face of mounting U.S. and global environmental destruction resulting from man-made climate change, which no longer is in scientific dispute, why is there such a virulent denial of man-made climate change science in the U.S.?
It appears largely a partisan, political issue championed by Donald Trump and other Republicans, and climate change science denial obviously is embraced and financially supported by those, such as the Koch brothers, who would suffer economic loss as fossil fuel consumption is replaced with sustainable, more environmentally friendly energy technologies.
In what may be one of the greatest failures of political leadership in the history of mankind, the U.S. now has a President, an obviously effortless, frequent, and shameless prevaricator, who has labeled man-made climate change science a "hoax," and has instituted an administration promoting increased fossil fuel consumption, even while cutting funding for man-made science data collection and research and reassigning and otherwise silencing the federal government's climate scientists.
Trump and Republican denials of the ongoing man-made climate change holocaust, and the labeling of man-made climate change science as a "hoax," is only made possible by the intellectual compliance of most Republicans, and by resting on the centuries-old prestige of the American Presidency, which Trump has trashed in a few short years.
I'm unaware of any leading Ohio Republicans who aren't man-made climate change deniers (e.g., echoing refrains such as the science is "uncertain"), let alone any that have called for a concerted effort to transition away from fossil fuels. Unfortunately, most leading Ohio Democrats, while acknowledging man-made climate change as an existential threat, have been at least cowered into inaction and unwillingness to advance any policies to mitigate man-made climate change.
In contrast, Democrats in other states, most notably California, have instituted policies to greatly reduce their states' dependencies on fossil fuel consumption.
Most of the rest of the world, with perhaps the exception of Russia's Putin, derides such scientific ignorance about man-made climate change. And many Americans, faced first-hand with the consequences of man-made climate change, whether year-round wildfire conflagrations that are destroying western forests, more persistent droughts, more persistent and severe toxic algal blooms such as the red tide blooms currently devastating Florida coastal areas, and more intense, wet and destructive hurricanes, are first-hand learning the consequences of falling victim to a "Big Lie."
Yet Trump/Republican belittling of man-made climate change science is having a global impact, especially in the English-speaking world, with likely disastrous consequences. In the face of the ongoing death of the Great Barrier Reef, the unwillingness of Australians to embrace policies to mitigate man-made climate change does not bode well for those Americans urging a concerted effort to wean the U.S. off of fossil fuels.
Until voters in Ohio and elsewhere start booting out of office man-made climate change deniers, and demanding policies to transition away from fossil fuel consumption, mankind likely is on a very slipper slope to catastrophe, as represented by the economic impacts late in this century (and likely much earlier given recent trends) presented in post 1 of this thread.
Last edited by WRnative; 10-13-2018 at 08:46 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
