Climate change seen as top threat, but U.S. power a growing worry - poll

[Chomper Higgot]

25 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Climate change is caused by the movement of the magnetic north pole, not by people.

If the one bit of science you understood was the transmission of sound through water, you’d be blaming climate change on whale song.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

It never stops there. Give the loons an inch and they want a mile. Just look this week at Ms Cortez calling for every building in the United States to be demolished and rebuilt with "green" designs and technology. So, what happens to all the billions of tons of glass, concrete, slate, asbestos, dry wall, fixtures and fittings? Can Mr Cortez even begin to imagine the fossil fuels required to re-mine, refine and produce every single building in America? And then where will these "green" materials come from? Yes that's right, from mines, transported across continents and oceans, dug by huge diesel burning excavators all requiring a colossal amount of fossil fuel burning. It is pure lunacy. This is why we must stand strong and reject the ideologists and their hare-brained ideas.

 

 I read on this thread that only 97% of scientists even agree that the climate is changing. This makes it an unproven theory. You would find 100% of scientists agreeing that the earth is round - bacause that is factually proven. No figures for how many scientists concur that mankind and the burning of fossil fuels causes this change - as opposed to natural cycles that have existed since creation. And no source on who sponsored the scientists. Hungarian billionaires? The whole thing is a load of bull.

 

 Until we can legislate effectively against volcanos and their CO2 emmisions, I say keep gunning the V8's and leaving the millenials behind in their Priuses in a big cloud of smoke and burnt rubber.

I think you told us a lot more about yourself than you intended.

 

And not just your ignorance of climate change science.

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Just look this week at Ms Cortez calling for every building in the United States to be demolished and rebuilt with "green" designs and technology.

I got this far and realized you don't have a clue.

 

AOC is calling for retrofitting NOT razing...

[RickBradford]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps you should examine who’s promoting the arguments against environmentalism and check that against who’s promoting the idea you should not trust your government.

I'm not talking about environmentalism; I'm talking about taking action on a perceived threat of man-made climate change, which is what the OP is about. The two things are not the same at all, despite what activists would like us to believe. 

 

Even though climate change is the narrower problem, it is probably the harder one to solve. I have yet to see a viable "solution" which has any chance of being adopted by any government. If the idea is to run the world economy on sun and wind, well, good luck with that.

 

The best way to go about cutting CO2 emissions would be to ramp up nuclear power, but of course the Green/Left won't have a bar of that. It's almost like they don't believe the problem is serious.

[Chomper Higgot]

31 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I'm not talking about environmentalism; I'm talking about taking action on a perceived threat of man-made climate change, which is what the OP is about. The two things are not the same at all, despite what activists would like us to believe. 

 

Even though climate change is the narrower problem, it is probably the harder one to solve. I have yet to see a viable "solution" which has any chance of being adopted by any government. If the idea is to run the world economy on sun and wind, well, good luck with that.

 

The best way to go about cutting CO2 emissions would be to ramp up nuclear power, but of course the Green/Left won't have a bar of that. It's almost like they don't believe the problem is serious.

The threat of man made climate change is not ‘perceived’.

 

The scientific consensus is that man made climate change is a threat.

 

The scientific consensus is not a ‘perception’.

 

erm:

 

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/05/china-may-raise-2020-solar-target-to-over-200-gw/

[blazes]

26 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I'm not talking about environmentalism; I'm talking about taking action on a perceived threat of man-made climate change, which is what the OP is about. The two things are not the same at all, despite what activists would like us to believe. 

 

Even though climate change is the narrower problem, it is probably the harder one to solve. I have yet to see a viable "solution" which has any chance of being adopted by any government. If the idea is to run the world economy on sun and wind, well, good luck with that.

 

The best way to go about cutting CO2 emissions would be to ramp up nuclear power, but of course the Green/Left won't have a bar of that. It's almost like they don't believe the problem is serious.

 

A double "thank-you".  It's good to see the problem stated so clearly.

Probably 100% of us here on ThaiVisa, responding to this  kind of thread, are totally in favour of preventing pollution wherever possible (including opposition to the deforestation which is a major factor in climate catastrophe). 

If you want to stop CO2 emissions, why not go protest against all the volcanos of the world, which occasionally remind us of the power of Nature (as opposed to the puny effect of anthropogenic contributions).

[blazes]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The threat of man made climate change is not ‘perceived’.

 

The scientific consensus is that man made climate change is a threat.

 

The scientific consensus is not a ‘perception’.

 

erm:

 

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/05/china-may-raise-2020-solar-target-to-over-200-gw/

 

Clearly anyone who, with religious intensity, calls upon "the scientific consensus" so often and so blindly has never been inside a university, where he would have perceived that academics are ordinary people with totally comprehensible motives in life.  They have careers to protect.  In the Sciences, a scientist's academic career depends hugely on Grants won from thousands of commercial enterprises worldwide.  If a Chemist is happy to "doctor" her results to satisfy her commercial sponsor, why be surprised if her colleagues similarly go along with whatever the  "consensus" happens to be.

 

And finally, let's not forget that in Western societies, those who blow the whistle to call attention to the lack of clothes being worn by the Emperor are treated as traitors, heretics, and unpatriotic rats.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

A double "thank-you".  It's good to see the problem stated so clearly.

Probably 100% of us here on ThaiVisa, responding to this  kind of thread, are totally in favour of preventing pollution wherever possible (including opposition to the deforestation which is a major factor in climate catastrophe). 

If you want to stop CO2 emissions, why not go protest against all the volcanos of the world, which occasionally remind us of the power of Nature (as opposed to the puny effect of anthropogenic contributions).

So the excuse for not addressing which  is within our control is to be found in pointing at that which we can’t control.

 

And you thought that deserved a thank you?!

[blazes]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

So the excuse for not addressing which  is within our control is to be found in pointing at that which we can’t control.

 

And you thought that deserved a thank you?!

Oh dear, you did take me literally, didn't you?

 

You blinded yourself to the attempted humour of my suggestion that we protest against volcanos!!!!

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, blazes said:

 

Clearly anyone who, with religious intensity, calls upon "the scientific consensus" so often and so blindly has never been inside a university, where he would have perceived that academics are ordinary people with totally comprehensible motives in life.  They have careers to protect.  In the Sciences, a scientist's academic career depends hugely on Grants won from thousands of commercial enterprises worldwide.  If a Chemist is happy to "doctor" her results to satisfy her commercial sponsor, why be surprised if her colleagues similarly go along with whatever the  "consensus" happens to be.

 

And finally, let's not forget that in Western societies, those who blow the whistle to call attention to the lack of clothes being worn by the Emperor are treated as traitors, heretics, and unpatriotic rats.

I’m not at all sure on what basis you claim ‘[I’ve] never been inside a university’.

 

If you can enlighten us on your evidence to back up that claim, we might then get an idea of the worth of the other statements you make.

[blazes]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not at all sure on what basis you claim ‘[I’ve] never been inside a university’.

 

If you can enlighten us on your evidence to back up that claim, we might then get an idea of the worth of the other statements you make.

 

Dear Chomper, all I was saying was that if you knew academia from the inside, you would not be so ready, willing and able to give "scientists" such unquestioned belief.

And I am not going to satisfy your nosy desire to find out how I am qualified to make that kind of statement.

[yogi100]

We continually hear about these polls conducted by various outfits but never about the people who take part in them. The BBC are said to conduct polls among their own staff about various political issues.

 

I have never been asked to take part in a single poll and neither as far as I'm aware has a single one of my friends, relatives or acquaintances. None of 'em are aware of any effects of global warming, climate change rising sea levels and none could care less about US power. As our main ally we welcome it.

 

Many of us Britons on the other hand actually see Trump as a breath of fresh air compared to our own politicians who have destroyed what used to be our capital city and are equally intent on eventually destroying the rest of Britain using the same policies.

 

My son has had two of his acquaintances stabbed to death in the last few years including the painter and decorator who had his throat cut in South London just the other day. The lad was going about his business and had never been in a fight in his life.

 

It used to be one of the safest cities in the world but it is now one of the most dangerous and it has nothing to do with climate change. I'm sure the citizens of other Western nations have similar concerns when it comes to prioritising affairs that really affect their way of life.

 

Our main concerns are the ever increasing threat of violence along with the rise of Islam in the UK and the attack on free speech that is intended to prevent us from discussing it. 

[RickBradford]

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The scientific consensus is that man made climate change is a threat.

That's simply not true.

 

The  scientific consensus is that:

a ) the planet has warmed about 1C since 1850

b ) man-made emissions of greenhouse gases have most likely contributed to that warming

 

The idea of a "threat" is not really a question for scientists anyway. They can make computer models predicting whatever disasters they choose, but it is really in the realm of economics to decide whether this represents a "threat".

 

The Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus, who is perhaps the best-known specialist on the impacts of future climate change, recently collated studies from around the world estimating the damage caused by climate change by the year 2100.

 

The results were: Not much, even at the extreme estimates of temperature rise.

 

 

So, for any mainstream estimate of temperature rise, damage comes in at a few percent of output at most. And by 2100, the world will be many times richer than it is today.

 

Where's the "threat"?

[Chomper Higgot]

29 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

Dear Chomper, all I was saying was that if you knew academia from the inside, you would not be so ready, willing and able to give "scientists" such unquestioned belief.

And I am not going to satisfy your nosy desire to find out how I am qualified to make that kind of statement.

Perhaps I have sufficient exposure to academia, academics and science to understand that neither academia nor academics read science.

 

“And I am not going to satisfy your nosy desire to find out how I am qualified to make that kind of statement.”

 

If you do not wish me to enquire into the basis of statements you make about me, don’t make the statements.

 

For the time being, we can all note that your personal comments remain baseless.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, wilcopops said:

And the mini ice age was caused by human activity.

Are you aware it was in 1645 when people used horses and the population was a fraction of the present? How exactly did humans cause it?

[talahtnut]

On 2/11/2019 at 9:32 AM, Ahab said:

The USA did not start two massive world wars, but we did help clean them up. Maybe the rest of the world has little idea about what is important to "worry about".

America cleaned up with 2 atomic bombs, napalm,

daisy cutters, agent orange, and a list of hideous

weapons too numerous to list..US has been involved

in over 100 wars, and 60 or so regime changes since

1945.  All for profit.  Venezuela next?

[RickBradford]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you aware it was in 1645 when people used horses and the population was a fraction of the present? How exactly did humans cause it?

SUHs - Sports Utility Horses.

 

In the world of the Green/Left, irrationality reigns.

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That's simply not true.

 

The  scientific consensus is that:

a ) the planet has warmed about 1C since 1850

b ) man-made emissions of greenhouse gases have most likely contributed to that warming

 

The idea of a "threat" is not really a question for scientists anyway. They can make computer models predicting whatever disasters they choose, but it is really in the realm of economics to decide whether this represents a "threat".

 

The Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus, who is perhaps the best-known specialist on the impacts of future climate change, recently collated studies from around the world estimating the damage caused by climate change by the year 2100.

 

The results were: Not much, even at the extreme estimates of temperature rise.

 

 

So, for any mainstream estimate of temperature rise, damage comes in at a few percent of output at most. And by 2100, the world will be many times richer than it is today.

 

Where's the "threat"?

The conclusions of the report the graphic you posted was taken from are not helping your argument:

 

The report accepts significant areas of economy and environment are not included and that the findings are likely under estimates.

 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w23646.pdf

 

You also portray the work of Nordhaus as being the scientific consensus, it is not.

 

Nordhaus is very much a neo-classicist, and this is clear in his work.

 

A broader view:

 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[Chomper Higgot]

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you aware it was in 1645 when people used horses and the population was a fraction of the present? How exactly did humans cause it?

I think Wilco pops was being facetious.

 

I’m only surprised you missed it.

[RickBradford]

Quote

You also portray the work of Nordhaus as being the scientific consensus, it is not.

No, I don't. I merely said that he had collected studies from many experts in the field and those were their conclusions. Good science doesn't work on consensus, it works on open debate of differences between people. NASA is also entitled to its opinion.

 

Quote

Nordhaus is very much a neo-classicist, and this is clear in his work.

Disputing someone's credentials because they don't say what you want to hear is not a sustainable strategy. 

 

One of the biggest mistakes the Green/Left has made is portraying the climate debate as a power struggle between the good (them) and the evil (capitalists and their lackeys).

 

It's very unhelpful, and a major reason why nothing significant has been done for 20 years about climate and why the 2015 Paris Agreement essentially ended any serious attempt to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

Anyone who adopts this antagonistic, essentially Hobbesian view of the climate debate is part of the problem, not the solution.

 

 

 

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

The best way to go about cutting CO2 emissions would be to ramp up nuclear power, but of course the Green/Left won't have a bar of that. It's almost like they don't believe the problem is serious.

You will find that it is the fossil fuels lobby, not the "green/left" who are stopping new nuclear. This is not 1972...

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

No, I don't. I merely said that he had collected studies from many experts in the field and those were their conclusions. Good science doesn't work on consensus, it works on open debate of differences between people. NASA is also entitled to its opinion.

 

Disputing someone's credentials because they don't say what you want to hear is not a sustainable strategy. 

 

One of the biggest mistakes the Green/Left has made is portraying the climate debate as a power struggle between the good (them) and the evil (capitalists and their lackeys).

 

It's very unhelpful, and a major reason why nothing significant has been done for 20 years about climate and why the 2015 Paris Agreement essentially ended any serious attempt to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

Anyone who adopts this antagonistic, essentially Hobbesian view of the climate debate is part of the problem, not the solution.

 

 

 

That’s arguably the most bizarre explanation for the failings of the Paris Agreement.

 

Youshould consider the possibility that the ‘Greens/Left’ might have indeed identified the culprit.

 

Certainly it is not the ‘Greens/Left’ that are funding climate change denial, nor is it the ‘Green/Left’ pouring money into the pockets of politicians to forestall or indeed reverse environmental legislation.

 

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, mikebike said:

You will find that it is the fossil fuels lobby, not the "green/left" who are fighting new nuclear. This is not 1972...

Here's Greenpeace's mission statement on nuclear power:

Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

No, I don't. I merely said that he had collected studies from many experts in the field and those were their conclusions. Good science doesn't work on consensus, it works on open debate of differences between people. NASA is also entitled to its opinion.

 

Disputing someone's credentials because they don't say what you want to hear is not a sustainable strategy. 

 

One of the biggest mistakes the Green/Left has made is portraying the climate debate as a power struggle between the good (them) and the evil (capitalists and their lackeys).

 

It's very unhelpful, and a major reason why nothing significant has been done for 20 years about climate and why the 2015 Paris Agreement essentially ended any serious attempt to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

Anyone who adopts this antagonistic, essentially Hobbesian view of the climate debate is part of the problem, not the solution.

 

 

 

First of all I don't agree with your statement you didn't pretend his material was the consensus. Yes, you didn't write that, but muffled it in in such a way the intention was clear: pretend it was something it isn't.

 

Secondly, please don't blame the people who want to do something about the environment and climate for the fact that far from enough is being done. Your argumentation here is as twisted as it can get.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, blazes said:

...if you knew academia from the inside, you would not be so ready, willing and able to give "scientists" such unquestioned belief.

We question scientists constantly and rightly. We do not question the scientific method. If YOU understood that you wouldn't make asinine statements...

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Certainly it is not the ‘Greens/Left’ that are funding climate change denial, nor is it the ‘Green/Left’ pouring money into the pockets of politicians to forestall or indeed reverse environmental legislation.

As if it needed repeating, anyone who can't do better than drone on about "denial", and organised funding of denial, is part of the problem, not the solution.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Here's Greenpeace's mission statement on nuclear power:

Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

Would you care to explain what you think is wrong with their statement?

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

As if it needed repeating, anyone who can't do better than drone on about "denial", and organised funding of denial, is part of the problem, not the solution.

You’ve not improved your argument by getting personal.

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Secondly, please don't blame the people who want to do something about the environment and climate for the fact that far from enough is being done.

Why not? The Green/Left blames everybody else for the fact that far from enough is being done.

 

Unless we accept as an article of faith that the Green/Left is right and good, and everyone else is bad and evil, and that's not a good starting point. Everybody wants to have a nice environment and a stable climate, if we can achieve that. That's trivial.

 

Finger-pointing, droning on about "deniers", building conspiracy theories about funding of opposition, is simply not going to achieve anything in future, just as it hasn't in the past.

[mikebike]

9 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Here's Greenpeace's mission statement on nuclear power:

Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

Edited my post to reflect that some l/g groups my still be fighting new nuclear, but they are not the ones stopping its proliferation.