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

[bristolboy]

55 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Well, that's obviously not true. There are hundreds of studies that imply that both the MWP and the RWP were at least as warm as today, globally,,,,

 

No there aren't.

 

57 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

 

Perhaps the truth is in the middle. Both the RWP and MWP were about as hot as today.

 

 

 

 

False. 

 

58 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

 

The other issue is, does it matter? Are warm periods not better than cold periods? 

 

 

Better for who? 

[yogi100]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

With a defaistic attitude like that nothing will ever be achieved.

What has your non defaistic attitude ever achieved in the decades since we have been made aware of environmental pollution.

 

Do you actually believe that our voices will prevent billions of Indians, Chinese and Africans  from chucking their rubbish into the rivers and sea. The Ganges is one of the most polluted river in the world.

 

Will our voices clear the industrial haze that now covers many Asian cities. They're chasing after the wealth that comes with industrialisation and mass manufacturing. It's plainly obvious that they could not care less about what Western tree huggers have to say about it all.

 

Just looking at the plastic bags that get dumped in the streets of a comparatively civilised country like Thailand should answer such questions.

[VincentRJ]

40 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No there aren't.

 

Yes there are. Here are some of the studies. Read them all, then get back to me.

 

"More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/

 

Better for who?

 

Better for most people, including those who live in the tropics. James Lovelock retired in Singapore, which is on the equator. He has no problem with the warming climate, and now thinks the hype is a load of rubbish.

[RickBradford]

^^

Nothing will get done on major environmental issues, least of all climate, until the Green/Left does something to address its unshakable and quite misplaced arrogance.

 

Their default mindset is : "If you understood the problem as well as I understand the problem, then you would agree with me and see that I am right." It simply never occurs to them that there may be more than one way to look at complex issues, because they never bother to ask.

 

It's wrong-headed and very unhelpful, but shows no sign of changing. So nothing will get done.

[talahtnut]

2 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

What has your non defaistic attitude ever achieved in the decades since we have been made aware of environmental pollution.

 

Do you actually believe that our voices will prevent billions of Indians, Chinese and Africans  from chucking their rubbish into the rivers and sea. The Ganges is one of the most polluted river in the world.

 

Will our voices clear the industrial haze that now covers many Asian cities. They're chasing after the wealth that comes with industrialisation and mass manufacturing. It's plainly obvious that they could not care less about what Western tree huggers have to say about it all.

 

Just looking at the plastic bags that get dumped in the streets of a comparatively civilised country like Thailand should answer such questions.

I have to agree, pollution should be of immediate concern,

already the food chain is being poisoned by waste plastics

and chemicals on land and sea. The result needs no imagination.

 

 

[yogi100]

5 minutes ago, talahtnut said:

I have to agree, pollution should be of immediate concern,

already the food chain is being poisoned by waste plastics

and chemicals on land and sea. The result needs no imagination.

 

 

The concern of even a million Western environmentalists will have no effect of the activities of billions of comparatively backward peoples around the world who take living among rubbish as part of their every day existence. It's water off a ducks back to them.

[stevenl]

49 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

What has your non defaistic attitude ever achieved in the decades since we have been made aware of environmental pollution.

 

Do you actually believe that our voices will prevent billions of Indians, Chinese and Africans  from chucking their rubbish into the rivers and sea. The Ganges is one of the most polluted river in the world.

 

Will our voices clear the industrial haze that now covers many Asian cities. They're chasing after the wealth that comes with industrialisation and mass manufacturing. It's plainly obvious that they could not care less about what Western tree huggers have to say about it all.

 

Just looking at the plastic bags that get dumped in the streets of a comparatively civilised country like Thailand should answer such questions.

Doesn't matter at all what my attitude achieved here.

Yours will achieve nothing, even work the opposite way.

[yogi100]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Doesn't matter at all what my attitude achieved here.

Yours will achieve nothing, even work the opposite way.

 

You are achieving nothing by getting on at me about it. Get on to those who are responsible in India or China for the pollution not me. Like you I used to fell guilty every time I put a plastic bag in the kitchen bin but what is the point. It's shipped out to China where they burn plastic waste to create energy and even more pollution.

 

My own sister was the author of Pollution and the Environment which she wrote in the 1960s and was one of her two publications that was distributed as a text book in British schools dealing with the subject. That was over half a century ago and her efforts have had no world wide influence at all. But fish, even Salmon can now be caught in the all reaches of the River Thames. 

 

Why don't you have a crack at writing a book on the matter instead of bleating on at people on internet forums about it.

[stevenl]

15 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

You are achieving nothing by getting on at me about it. Get on to those who are responsible in India or China for the pollution not me. Like you I used to fell guilty every time I put a plastic bag in the kitchen bin but what is the point. It's shipped out to China where they burn plastic waste to create energy and even more pollution.

 

My own sister was the author of Pollution and the Environment which she wrote in the 1960s and was one of her two publications that was distributed as a text book in British schools dealing with the subject. That was over half a century ago and her efforts have had no world wide influence at all. But fish, even Salmon can now be caught in the all reaches of the River Thames. 

 

Why don't you have a crack at writing a book on the matter instead of bleating on at people on internet forums about it.

Bleating on at people on internet forums, if anything you're the one bleating on.

 

A pity, since your previous posts about coral protection and vegetarians showed good intentions.

[jcsmith]

On 2/11/2019 at 9:41 AM, Ahab said:

Trump will be re-elected in a landslide. Global warming/climate change/whatever they call the next world ending crisis will be assigned to the dust bin of history along with all the other apocalyptic visions (both religious and other) that have ever been created.
 

Before you start calling me a holocaust denier (I mean global warming/whatever we are calling this crap theory this week) please tell me how much of the current warming is anthropogenic and how much is just a natural cycle? If you say it is all manmade you are a moron.

So a guy who is polling in the 35-45% range and dropping is going to win the election by a landslide? Put down the Kool Aid man. 

And as for the question on how much of this is just a natural cycle... 

Think before you speak.

[yogi100]

32 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Bleating on at people on internet forums, if anything you're the one bleating on.

 

A pity, since your previous posts about coral protection and vegetarians showed good intentions.

What posts about coral protection and vegetarians?

[talahtnut]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Doesn't matter at all what my attitude achieved here.

Yours will achieve nothing, even work the opposite way.

Your attitude is important.

The Doomsday Clock is ticking.

[stevenl]

10 minutes ago, talahtnut said:

Your attitude is important.

The Doomsday Clock is ticking.

Which is exactly my point.

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

What posts about coral protection and vegetarians?

Sorry, different poster with the same 4 letters in username.

[Ahab]

53 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

So a guy who is polling in the 35-45% range and dropping is going to win the election by a landslide? Put down the Kool Aid man. 

And as for the question on how much of this is just a natural cycle... 

Think before you speak.

It is still a trace gas and the temperatures have not kept increasing in line with the rise in CO2 (which is what the theory says it should do) in the atmosphere.

[Ahab]

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 8:58 PM, bristolboy said:

Because the choices you offered were inadequate. The best answer, the one that most climatologists would subscribe to would be " from most to all".

The correct answer would be some, and they really don't know how much is attributable to manmade activities. Anyone that says all is ignorant of the science, but it works well in the political realm.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

The correct answer would be some, and they really don't know how much is attributable to manmade activities. Anyone that says all is ignorant of the science, but it works well in the political realm.

Well, I didn't say "all".  I said "from most to all." Big difference. Nice try at a straw man, though.

 

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

It is still a trace gas and the temperatures have not kept increasing in line with the rise in CO2 (which is what the theory says it should do) in the atmosphere.

No reputable climatologist says CO2 is the only factor. Therefore, other factors may come into play. But the sharp historically unprecedented rate of increase correlates with the sharp historically increase in the amount of CO2. Maybe the earth will experience a sharp rise in volcanism or a sharp decrease in solar output. Those factors can have a dampening influence. But best not to count on it.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Well, I didn't say "all".  I said "from most to all." Big difference. Nice try at a straw man, though.

 

No reputable climatologist says CO2 is the only factor. Therefore, other factors may come into play. But the sharp historically unprecedented rate of increase correlates with the sharp historically increase in the amount of CO2. Maybe the earth will experience a sharp rise in volcanism or a sharp decrease in solar output. Those factors can have a dampening influence. But best not to count on it.

I completely agree that no reputable science climatologist says CO2 is the only factor, but you specifically posted that most or all the warming was due to human actions. Then questioned my intelligence when I disagreed. 

 

My point on all of my climate posts is that the cure (Kyoto, Paris etc.) is not effective and too expensive. While we can disagree on the affordability of these agreements, there isn't much to argue about the effectiveness of these types of agreements in actually decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  None of these agreements would have reduced the amount of worldwide temperature change (or CO2) in any measurable way. Proposals to eliminate all fossil fuels will make some people feel good but are basically anti-humanity and will sentence people in developing countries to poverty. Fossil fuels heat our homes in winter, allow air travel, and have improved human existence and life expectancies throughout the world and to date none of the green energies hold a reasonable or realistic promise of replacing fossil fuels in the near or long term future.  

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

I completely agree that no reputable science climatologist says CO2 is the only factor, but you specifically posted that most or all the warming was due to human actions. Then questioned my intelligence when I disagreed. 

 

My point on all of my climate posts is that the cure (Kyoto, Paris etc.) is not effective and too expensive. While we can disagree on the affordability of these agreements, there isn't much to argue about the effectiveness of these types of agreements in actually decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  None of these agreements would have reduced the amount of worldwide temperature change (or CO2) in any measurable way. Proposals to eliminate all fossil fuels will make some people feel good but are basically anti-humanity and will sentence people in developing countries to poverty. Fossil fuels heat our homes in winter, allow air travel, and have improved human existence and life expectancies throughout the world and to date none of the green energies hold a reasonable or realistic promise of replacing fossil fuels in the near or long term future.  

You raised the whole issue of intelligence with you proposed silly questions.

Your point was about Kyoto? Have you actually raised it in this threads?

As for the rise in global warming, it's rate of increase is unprecedented in recorded history. In fact, going back at least 11,000 years. So yes, it's obvious that most or all  of it is due to human generated greenhouse gases.

And as climatologists point out, the people who are already suffering the most and going to suffer a lot more from  climate change are those who live in the tropics and subtropics. The frequency and intensity of heatwaves there has already killed thousands and it's going to get worse. And low lying countries like Bangladesh are facing the likelihood of massive flooding.

And the glaciers of the Himalayas and South American, among others, which supply the rivers that water areas of roughly half the earth's  population, are in rapid retreat.

 

And your comments about green energies are dead dead dead wrong.  These are the fossilized arguments of the fossil fuel crowd. Not only has the cost of generating solar and wind already declined so precipitously  that it's already knocking coal out as an economical source of power generation, but it's starting to do the same to natural gas. All these development are happening way ahead of what was predicted just a few years ago.

Thanks to recent huge advance in battery storage,  the rate of progress will only accelerate.

[Ahab]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 

And as climatologists point out, the people who are already suffering the most and going to suffer a lot more from  climate change are those who live in the tropics and subtropics. The frequency and intensity of heatwaves there has already killed thousands and it's going to get worse. And low lying countries like Bangladesh are facing the likelihood of massive flooding.

And the glaciers of the Himalayas and South American, among others, which supply the rivers that water areas of roughly half the earth's  population, are in rapid retreat.

 

And your comments about green energies are dead dead dead wrong.  These are the fossilized arguments of the fossil fuel crowd. Not only has the cost of generating solar and wind already declined so precipitously  that it's already knocking coal out as an economical source of power generation, but it's starting to do the same to natural gas. All these development are happening way ahead of what was predicted just a few years ago.

Thanks to recent huge advance in battery storage,  the rate of progress will only accelerate.

The frequency of heatwaves and other things such as hurricanes, tornados, and typhoons have not increased (from the IPCC).

The low lying areas of Bangladesh have faced the threat of flooding for the last couple of hundred years, so that is a fairly bold prediction on your part.

 

My comments on green energy are based on the realities and the footprint (sq/m per kw/h) that these technologies require to produce enough power to meet a modern countries energy needs (unless you are in favor of nuclear power, which I would guess you are not). A good video on the topic can be found in the Ted link below. I am not against green energy, I am against unrealistic expectations and solutions that have no chance of working with the current technology. Let's do things that work.

 

[doggie1955]

On 2/11/2019 at 9:09 AM, darksidedog said:

I find it quite worrying that nearly half of the people around the world view the US as a major threat, numbers which have skyrocketed in the last two years, from 8 to 50%. Since Mr. Trump has taken power, what was almost a non issue, is one of the greatest concerns. To my mind, it means that Mr. Trump is giving an exceptionally poor performance, not assisted by his deceitful and manipulative means, or his fundamental character which so, so many see as fatally flawed. We all make mistakes, but I pray America doesn't repeat its huge one, in the elections next year, and the world can start to move forward again.

As for the climate, it should be our top priority, denial of which is at least partially to blame for the concern so many have with administrations who choose to ignore it.

Well, I can see you are not an American... The one thing you don't understand is that liberals hate Trump, but the real American's love him! And Trump will be here for the next 6 yrs, you can bank on that! And for the rest of the world... Trump is working for the American people, not the world. And if you want to cry about the climate, then go cry to China and India... see if they care.

 

 

[bristolboy]

54 minutes ago, doggie1955 said:

Well, I can see you are not an American... The one thing you don't understand is that liberals hate Trump, but the real American's love him!

 

Who are outnumbered by Americans who apparently aren't real.

[doggie1955]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Who are outnumbered by Americans who apparently aren't real.

Who are all illegals... Sorry, we don't call them Americans! 

[stevenl]

51 minutes ago, doggie1955 said:

Who are all illegals... Sorry, we don't call them Americans! 

Who is 'we' please?

[ballpoint]

Just now, stevenl said:

Who is 'we' please?

Him, and the other three voices in his head.

[yogavnture]

either us the boss or china the boss . u pick

[FritsSikkink]

10 minutes ago, yogavnture said:

either us the boss or china the boss . u pick

There is the fundamental problem of your country, there doesn't have to be a boss, you can work together.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, doggie1955 said:

Who are all illegals... Sorry, we don't call them Americans! 

Oh, if you vote against Trump, that makes you an illegal?