An Inconvenient Review (support, million, country, history)
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.
That would be stupid. It would result in American consumers paying to ship more jobs to China.
No, it would pressure China and India into following suit, especially if they were hit with carbon tariffs. There are plenty of other nations who would support this-- big players like Japan, the EU, etc., who know it's not about protectionism so much as global preservation.
I guess I have read your anti-global warming threads incorrectly if you are claiming that they aren't anti-global warming threads.
Anti AGW is not anti GW.
The globe warms and cools. Always has. Always will. The controversy is how to measure it and what causes it.
I am a firm believer in global warming. The earth today is a lot warmer than it was 500 years ago. It's a lot colder than 3 million years ago. So there have been times when it was hotter and colder than today.
And CO2 also goes up and down and now is about as low as it's ever been. For most of the earth's history, CO2 has been much higher than it is today.
The globe warms and cools. Always has. Always will. The controversy is how to measure it and what causes it.
I am a firm believer in global warming. The earth today is a lot warmer than it was 500 years ago. It's a lot colder than 3 million years ago. So there have been times when it was hotter and colder than today.
And CO2 also goes up and down and now is about as low as it's ever been. For most of the earth's history, CO2 has been much higher than it is today.
There's ignorant nonsense like this ^^^^
Then, there's science:
Lecture on the earth's climate history by Professor Richard Alley at the 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference to over 2000 scientists:
I realise science deniers probably won't watch either of these lectures. In this age of information, people really have to choose to remain ignorant and misinformed about science.
Yes, that's your opinion... but I don't understand why it's so devious to profit from an actual problem that is actually occurring, yet profiting from pretending that the actual problem doesn't exist is fine.
For starters, not even the scientists themselves or their false 97% consensus are sure exactly HOW MUCH man contributes OR how bad it will be.
Meanwhile there is literally BILLIONS of dollars being doled out every single year by the governement to research institutions predicated on their alarmist predictions. Do you really think those scientists and institutions are eager to conduct truly impartial science that might come to the conclusion that maybe we don't know enough about the climate yet or that maybe it's not as bad as we thought?
No. Because if they did that, careers would end, research departments would close and the fortunes of hucksters like Al Gore and James Hansen would dry up
Quote:
“Funding of science, in this particular case, climate change science, is dominated by the federal government. We assert that this will cause recipients of [government] grants to publish findings that are in-line with government policy preferences (i.e., don’t bite the hand that feeds you)
“After a while, the scientific literature becomes dominated by these types of research findings which then produces a biased knowledge base,” Knappenberger said. “This knowledge base is then ‘assessed’ by intergovernmental and federal science committees (i.e., IPCC, USGCRP) to produce authoritative reports that supposedly represent the scientific ‘consensus,’ which is then tapped by the federal government in determining policy and setting regulations, such as the CPP [Clean Power Plan].”
Universities typically received about 50 percent of the money that their researchers get in public funds if their research finds positive results, making them deeply dependent upon federal funding and likely to encourage studies which will come to conclusions that the government wants.
Even counting only private money, environmental groups massively outspend their opposition. Opposition to global warming activism only raises $46 million annually across 91 conservative think tanks according to analysis by Forbes. That’s almost 6 times less than Greenpeace’s 2011 budget of $260 million, and Greenpeace is only one of many environmental groups. The undeniable truth is that global warming activists raise and spend far more money than their opponents.
This is an example of the futility of "debating" this subject with people like you though. Your mind is already made up. I'm willing to meet in the middle and concede that corruption indeed happens on BOTH sides and neither side is entirely right or wrong in this issue. But people like you are not. You are following a dogma and pretending it's impartial science. You forget that for science to TRULY be impartial, it would have to exist independent of political and activist entities whose money influences how it's conducted and that happens on BOTH sides of this issue.
I doubt you will even consider the points raised above or the quotes in support of those points. Your mind is already made up. I'll bet you will instead seek to find some dirt on The Daily Caller or Knappenberger because what commonly happens in these debates. Ignore the argument and attack the messenger. Ad Hominem attacks over thoughtful consideration of another point of view.
I won't waste any more time on this topic. I'll just leave this up there for those with an OPEN mind.
Last edited by voiceofreazon; 05-08-2016 at 06:29 AM..
I realise science deniers probably won't watch either of these lectures. In this age of information, people really have to choose to remain ignorant and misinformed about science.
Do you expect the OP to educate himself about the science of this topic? I sure don't......
For starters, not even the scientists themselves or their false 97% consensus are sure exactly HOW MUCH man contributes OR how bad it will be.
Meanwhile there is literally BILLIONS of dollars being doled out every single year by the governement to research institutions predicated on their alarmist predictions. Do you really think those scientists and institutions are eager to conduct truly impartial science that might come to the conclusion that maybe we don't know enough about the climate yet or that maybe it's not as bad as we thought?
No. Because if they did that, careers would end, research departments would close and the fortunes of hucksters like Al Gore and James Hansen would dry up
This is an example of the futility of "debating" this subject with people like you though. Your mind is already made up. I'm willing to meet in the middle and concede that corruption indeed happens on BOTH sides and neither side is entirely right or wrong in this issue.But people like you are not. You are following a dogma and pretending it's impartial science. You forget that for science to TRULY be impartial, it would have to exist independent of political and activist entities whose money influences how it's conducted and that happens on BOTH sides of this issue.
I doubt you will even consider the points raised above or the quotes in support of those points. Your mind is already made up. I'll bet you will instead seek to find some dirt on The Daily Caller or Knappenberger because what commonly happens in these debates. Ignore the argument and attack the messenger. Ad Hominem attacks over thoughtful consideration of another point of view.
I won't waste any more time on this topic. I'll just leave this up there for those with an OPEN mind.
So your 'thoughtful' 'open minded' 'impartial' 'argument' against not only the strong consilience of published scientific evidence from many independent lines of investigation but the laws of physics as well, is a piece from the Daily Caller (conservative tabloid press) and the Cato Institute (an industry-funded Libertarian political think tank)basically accusing hundreds of thousands of scientists from many different fields of science from countries all over the world, of being corrupt, greedy, dishonest and fraudulent and all involved in some massive worldwide conspiracy for the last 40 years or so?
One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.
Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website TripAdvisor.com.
This makes it seem like you don't believe in global warming. If, in fact, Kilimanjaro were snow-free today, just as Gore predicted, would you be singing a different tune? I don't think so. I think you'd be saying: "Yeah, sure the globe is warming, but human's are not to blame, and/or we can't do anything about it." Indeed, that seems to be exactly what you are saying:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
I have never met anybody who does not believe in global warming. Maybe you could help me meet some of these people.
But hopefully you can see how people might be confused by your posts. Why all the crowing about "there is still snow on Kilimanjaro" if you already agree that the globe is warming? We all know (I hope) that specific predictions about the effects of climate change in specific locations, or over just a couple of decades, will always be tricky, at best. So why does Kilimanjaro matter, one way or the other, given that you already agree that the globe is warming?
But since you seem to think that Gore's predictions about Kilimanjaro are important, I will take a moment to consider what is going on there:
The new results showing how quickly ice is melting on Mt. Kilimanjaro's iconic summit comes from the lab of Lonnie Thompson, an Ohio State University glaciologist who has spent his career studying the climate records trapped in mountain glaciers in the tropics.
First of all, notice that this is a scientist who specializes in this sort of study - not just a tourists who snaps photos while on vacation.
The summit lost 80 percent of its ice between 1912 and 2007.
This was the sort of science that Gore was relying on when he made his prediction in the movie. Predictions are always tricky, but even the updated predictions are not very much different:
The Furtwangler Ice Field in particular has lost 50 percent of its thickness since 2000. At that pace, it will vanish into a damp patch of summit soil by 2018.
BTW: The quotes above are from an article in The Christian Science Monitor: Is global warming melting the ice on Mt. Kilimanjaro? - CSMonitor.com
Current estimates are not radically different from Gore's original prediction:
Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier projected to completely disappear by 2020 if melting continues at current rates.
“Six ice cores from Kilimanjaro provide an ~11.7-thousand-year record of Holocene climate and environmental variability for eastern equatorial Africa, including three periods of abrupt climate change: ~8.3, ~5.2, and ~4 thousand years ago. [The quote is from here.]
Notice the phrase "is likely to" and also notice that this prediction is based on the assumption "if melting continues at current rates." And notice the reference to variability over ages - exactly the sort of thing you keep harping about in a lot of your posts. Scientists are perfectly aware of these long-term variations that have nothing to do with human activity. They are not as stupid as you keep trying to imply. The whole trick of climate study is to tease out the forcing factors, most of which are well-known to be not caused by humans.
With something as complex as climate, no one seriously expects predictions to be prefect, If Gore's prediction is off by only off by 4 years, then that is a stunningly successful prediction - not a failure. And even if it doesn't really happen until, say, 2030, the underlying point is that it is happening.
As I said, given that you already accept global warming, I don't know why you are talking about Kilimanjaro at all, but my point is that Kilimanjaro is not disconfirming global warming.
What's actually happening on Kilimanjaro is complicated. For a more in-depth look at the subtle factors (e.g., local deforestation, etc.) I suggest looking here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/moun...njaro-snow.htm
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-08-2016 at 10:35 AM..
I realise science deniers probably won't watch either of these lectures. In this age of information, people really have to choose to remain ignorant and misinformed about science.
Sorry, but he is a geologist, not a climate scientist.
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.
