23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Fortunately, the left has been successful in putting an end to free plastic bags, we should see a significant decrease in temperatures soon. 

 

 

You've got nothing.

Earth climate has always  been changing in Cycles ,, it was much warmer than now in Europe  5000 years ago   and it was much colder in in 16th century,, and if it is caused by human industrial activities in last 200 years  its a drop in the ocean

 

Its all needless panic and manipulation  to allow politicians , big business to rip us all off and  give them more control

 

as if we can really do anything about it   ha ha   Its a natural cycle ,, might as well try affecting gravity or the  Sun

i have worked  in 50deg temperature in ME   and im ok in 5 year time there will be a new craze to scare  and manipulate  the public   .

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, liddelljohn said:

Earth climate has always  been changing in Cycles ,, it was much warmer than now in Europe  5000 years ago   and it was much colder in in 16th century,, and if it is caused by human industrial activities in last 200 years  its a drop in the ocean

 

Its all needless panic and manipulation  to allow politicians , big business to rip us all off and  give them more control

 

as if we can really do anything about it   ha ha   Its a natural cycle ,, might as well try affecting gravity or the  Sun

i have worked  in 50deg temperature in ME   and im ok in 5 year time there will be a new craze to scare  and manipulate  the public   .

 

 

 

I assume you're referring to the Milankkovitch cycles which are reckoned to last about 41,000 years. And,whether or not it was much warmer in Europe 5000 years ago, or whether it was colder in the 16th century. I've got some news for you. Europe is a very small portion of the surface of planet earth. And the latest research shows it's been very slowly getting warmer on Planet earth after it got warmer very quickly during the onset of the latest interglacial period. You know, the one we're right now. 

Yet all of a sudden, the average global temperature is getting warmer at a far more rapid rate. You see, it's about rate which is a factor that denialists like yourself seem utter blind to.

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

They're all here only to troll because they don't have science on their side.

  There is science on both sides, that's the nature of science , especially when there is a lot of it, its not difficult to cherry pick the internet and find graphs and statistics to support any theory, and when the subject in question is as complex as the climate, its even easier to do, there is an immense amount of pretty much useless information out there just waiting for anybody to latch on to. in order to further their cause or win their argument  whatever their viewpoint. 

       Comments such as yours are a perfect example of why rational discussion will never be possible, on this matter, anybody who dares to even question the "narrative" is immediately  labeled a denier, or a troll, or even bizarrely a right-wing extremist !. Purely to shutdown any further dialogue  This is not a rational way to discuss anything, And it inevitably descends into a verbal battlefield        Does this sound familiar? it should do as it is exactly the same situation we had with threads about Covid. people again often labeled as  deniers, (again) anti vaxxers, granny killers, even right wingers (again)!!

        Its all a complete waste of time but quite entertaining 

 

57 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

  There is science on both sides, that's the nature of science , especially when there is a lot of it, its not difficult to cherry pick the internet and find graphs and statistics to support any theory, and when the subject in question is as complex as the climate, its even easier to do, there is an immense amount of pretty much useless information out there just waiting for anybody to latch on to. in order to further their cause or win their argument  whatever their viewpoint. 

       Comments such as yours are a perfect example of why rational discussion will never be possible, on this matter, anybody who dares to even question the "narrative" is immediately  labeled a denier, or a troll, or even bizarrely a right-wing extremist !. Purely to shutdown any further dialogue  This is not a rational way to discuss anything, And it inevitably descends into a verbal battlefield        Does this sound familiar? it should do as it is exactly the same situation we had with threads about Covid. people again often labeled as  deniers, (again) anti vaxxers, granny killers, even right wingers (again)!!

        Its all a complete waste of time but quite entertaining 

 

There is nearly no scientific controversy about global warming any more, since 10 years already (from scientific peer-reviewed papers, not pseudo-science sources)

 

From a mera-analysis in 2013

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

On 7/22/2023 at 3:42 AM, digger70 said:

This week, Scott Pruitt, Environmental Protection Agency administrator, who had said that human activity was not the primary contributor to global warming, acknowledged that it plays a role—but stressed the need to figure out exactly how much of one.

Probably trying to avoid death threats to himself and his family, like this poor guy:

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/07/when-this-meteorologist-talked-about-climate-change-he-received-death-threats/

Quote

“go the hell back to where you came from ___________!!!” and demanded, “what’s your home address, we conservative Iowans would like to give you an Iowan welcome you will never forget.”

 

6 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

  There is science on both sides, that's the nature of science , especially when there is a lot of it, its not difficult to cherry pick the internet and find graphs and statistics to support any theory, and when the subject in question is as complex as the climate, its even easier to do, there is an immense amount of pretty much useless information out there just waiting for anybody to latch on to. in order to further their cause or win their argument  whatever their viewpoint. 

       Comments such as yours are a perfect example of why rational discussion will never be possible, on this matter, anybody who dares to even question the "narrative" is immediately  labeled a denier, or a troll, or even bizarrely a right-wing extremist !. Purely to shutdown any further dialogue  This is not a rational way to discuss anything, And it inevitably descends into a verbal battlefield        Does this sound familiar? it should do as it is exactly the same situation we had with threads about Covid. people again often labeled as  deniers, (again) anti vaxxers, granny killers, even right wingers (again)!!

        Its all a complete waste of time but quite entertaining 

 

No, there really isn't "science on both sides" anymore. There was a time when there were legitimate reasons for doubt, but that has long passed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#:~:text=A 2019 review of scientific,errors or cannot be replicated.

 

Why people believe that serious scientific doubts remain is due to the massive public relations spending by the fossil fuels lobby.

 

An Investor Enquiry:
How Much Big Oil Spends on Climate Lobbying

"We attempt to gain an order of magnitude estimate of a few, key representative oil and gas companies and trade associations to give investors and other interested parties a feel for the amounts of shareholder funds being used for this purpose. We find, estimating conservatively, that these five entities spent almost $115m per year combined on obstructive climate influencing activities, with the bulk by the American Petroleum Institute ($65m), ExxonMobil ($27m) and Shell ($22m).

Extrapolated over the entire fossil fuel and other industrial sectors beyond, it is not hard to consider that this obstructive climate policy lobbying spending may be in the order of $500m annually."

https://influencemap.org/report/Climate-Lobbying-by-the-Fossil-Fuel-Sector

 

My local University in Sussex is full of full on Greens , but in the science dept there are raging arguments among the scientific community  , YES the consensus is that there is global warming ,, but wether its mans fault or its a planetary  cycle or other reasons is  still hotly debated ,, and  also  even the  most  fanatical, man made climate change  people will admit that  , doing anything about it may be  a  fantasy , but it sure gives the elites, business and politicians  some  great opportunities to  run riot

I have my head firmly buried in the sand and I see no evidence of climate change.

 

The sand is awfully hot though.

6 hours ago, liddelljohn said:

My local University in Sussex is full of full on Greens , but in the science dept there are raging arguments among the scientific community  , YES the consensus is that there is global warming ,, but wether its mans fault or its a planetary  cycle or other reasons is  still hotly debated ,, and  also  even the  most  fanatical, man made climate change  people will admit that  , doing anything about it may be  a  fantasy , but it sure gives the elites, business and politicians  some  great opportunities to  run riot

No, virtually no climatologists believe that the Milankovitch cycle or any other planetary cycle is responsible for the current episode of rapid warming. The last person to try something like that one on was a person named Valentina Zharkova who posited that some sort of orbital cycle was responsible for warming. Her paper got retracted after a major basic error was discovered in her work. Apparently, she failed to account for the fact that Planet Earth also exerts a gravitational field.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/paper-that-claimed-the-sun-caused-global-warming-gets-retracted/

 

If so much debate is raging in the scientific community about a planetary cycle's effect on climate change, where are the research papers in support of such a theory? 

36 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No, virtually no climatologists believe that the Milankovitch cycle or any other planetary cycle is responsible for the current episode of rapid warming. The last person to try something like that one on was a person named Valentina Zharkova who posited that some sort of orbital cycle was responsible for warming. Her paper got retracted after a major basic error was discovered in her work. Apparently, she failed to account for the fact that Planet Earth also exerts a gravitational field.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/paper-that-claimed-the-sun-caused-global-warming-gets-retracted/

 

If so much debate is raging in the scientific community about a planetary cycle's effect on climate change, where are the research papers in support of such a theory? 

Who would fund such studies?

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Who would fund such studies?

What kind of funding do you think is needs? This isn't lab work. Nor is it fieldwork.This is purely computational.

47 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Who would fund such studies?

The fossil fuel industry, which is keen on denying global warming is a problem. 

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/opinion/sunday/david-koch-climate-change.html

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The fossil fuel industry, which is keen on denying global warming is a problem. 

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/opinion/sunday/david-koch-climate-change.html

Exxon actually did fund research in the 70s about the effects of greenhouse gases on climate. When their scientists concluded that the consequence of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would be global warming, Exxon did the honorable thing and suppressed their research.

I assume the Earth is warming, and I assume human activity contributes to it, but I think the bulk of what the left is doing about it is ridiculous. But I think it does win a lot of votes and make a lot of rich people richer. 

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I assume the Earth is warming, and I assume human activity contributes to it, but I think the bulk of what the left is doing about it is ridiculous. But I think it does win a lot of votes and make a lot of rich people richer. 

The richest people are related to the fossil fuel industry and they get richer by bribing right wing politicians to do nothing.

23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I assume the Earth is warming, and I assume human activity contributes to it, but I think the bulk of what the left is doing about it is ridiculous. But I think it does win a lot of votes and make a lot of rich people richer. 

I'm curious.  What do you think "the left" is doing about climate change and  why is it ridiculous?

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I'm curious.  What do you think "the left" is doing about climate change and  why is it ridiculous?

You will never get a rational explanation, just unfounded opinions.

All BS.

Hottest day on record globally 56.7c Death Valley 1913

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth#:~:text=According to the World Meteorological,States%2C on 10 July 1913.

 

Record low antarctic ice was 2012 (3.39MsqMi), this year 4.5M.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/#:~:text=The animated map below shows,lowest in the satellite record.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

The richest people are related to the fossil fuel industry and they get richer by bribing right wing politicians to do nothing.

Do you have anything that supports your nonsense? 

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

The richest people are related to the fossil fuel industry and they get richer by bribing right wing politicians to do nothing.

Al Gore is rich, all made from carbon trading.

Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are usually quoted as the richest guys, as left wing as you can get without being a communist/Marxist with no connection to fossil fuel as far as I can see.

Elron Musk, also rich makes electric cars.

Edited July 25, 20232 yr by BritManToo

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have anything that supports your nonsense? 

Oil and gas industry rewards US lawmakers who oppose environmental protections – study

“Legislators proved that they’re willing to vote against the environment consistently and then they’re rewarded later,”

The study analyzed data from 1990 to 2018. In 1990, 63% of oil and gas money went to Republicans, Goldberg noted. In 2018, 88% of the industry’s campaign donations were to the conservative party.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/24/oil-gas-industry-us-lawmakers-campaign-donations-analysis

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Oil and gas industry rewards US lawmakers who oppose environmental protections – study

“Legislators proved that they’re willing to vote against the environment consistently and then they’re rewarded later,”

The study analyzed data from 1990 to 2018. In 1990, 63% of oil and gas money went to Republicans, Goldberg noted. In 2018, 88% of the industry’s campaign donations were to the conservative party.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/24/oil-gas-industry-us-lawmakers-campaign-donations-analysis

Dude claimed: "The richest people are related to the fossil fuel industry and they get richer by bribing right wing politicians to do nothing."

 

Your article does not support that, in fact, it does the opposite. 

 

The article claims the entire oil and gas industry spent a piddly $84M to support the right, while Mark Zuckerberg alone donated over $400M to support the left. 

 

When you consider the bulk of gas and oil production is in red states, does it surprise anyone (not on the left) that that's where they donate their money? 

 

I think Hollywood and mainstream media is doing more to ruin the world than the oil industry ever thought about, and we all know where their donations go...

 

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Dude claimed: "The richest people are related to the fossil fuel industry and they get richer by bribing right wing politicians to do nothing."

 

Your article does not support that, in fact, it does the opposite. 

 

The article claims the entire oil and gas industry spent a piddly $84M to support the right, while Mark Zuckerberg alone donated over $400M to support the left. 

 

When you consider the bulk of gas and oil production is in red states, does it surprise anyone (not on the left) that that's where they donate their money? 

 

I think Hollywood and mainstream media is doing more to ruin the world than the oil industry ever thought about, and we all know where their donations go...

 

It would not surprise me that the oil industry has some of the richest people in it though. Fuel Tycoons. The operative quote from that peer reviewed paper being:

 

“Legislators proved that they’re willing to vote against the environment consistently and then they’re rewarded later,”

 

Led by the oil and gas industry, this sector regularly pumps the vast majority of its campaign contributions into Republican coffers. Even as other traditionally GOP-inclined industries have shifted somewhat to the left, this sector has remained rock-solid red.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=e01

 

Your point here though:

I think Hollywood and mainstream media is doing more to ruin the world than the oil industry ever thought about, and we all know where their donations go...

 

Never thought about it, where does Hollywood and the media send their donations? How's it ruining the world?

 

Edited July 25, 20232 yr by Bkk Brian

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

It would not surprise me that the oil industry has some of the richest people in it though. Fuel Tycoons. The operative quote from that peer reviewed paper being:

 

“Legislators proved that they’re willing to vote against the environment consistently and then they’re rewarded later,”

 

Led by the oil and gas industry, this sector regularly pumps the vast majority of its campaign contributions into Republican coffers. Even as other traditionally GOP-inclined industries have shifted somewhat to the left, this sector has remained rock-solid red.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=e01

 

Your point here though:

I think Hollywood and mainstream media is doing more to ruin the world than the oil industry ever thought about, and we all know where their donations go...

 

Never thought about it, where does Hollywood and the media send their donations? How's it ruining the world?

 

None in the top 50...

Forbes Billionaires 2023: The Richest People In The World

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

None in the top 50...

Forbes Billionaires 2023: The Richest People In The World

The US? Isn't that what the poster was referring to?

 

You'll find a few there including Koch Industries who secretly funds climate denial

 

https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

 

Still waiting for this though?

 

"I think Hollywood and mainstream media is doing more to ruin the world than the oil industry ever thought about, and we all know where their donations go..."

 

Never thought about it, where does Hollywood and the media send their donations? How's it ruining the world?

 

 

58 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have anything that supports your nonsense? 

Yes, posted here many times about the Koch brothers and others.

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

None in the top 50...

Forbes Billionaires 2023: The Richest People In The World

Plenty of fossil fuel magnates in that list, what are you on about?

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I assume the Earth is warming, and I assume human activity contributes to it, but I think the bulk of what the left is doing about it is ridiculous. But I think it does win a lot of votes and make a lot of rich people richer. 

It seems this right-wing/left-wing divergence about environmental issues occurs mainly in the U.S. (well, if the Democratic party could be considered as left-wing, lol! But never mind).

In other countries, there are plenty of right-wing governments who support environmental policies. Only the U.S. right-wing is that stupid (or, as shown by other posters, is bribed by oil companies).

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Plenty of fossil fuel magnates in that list, what are you on about?

You claimed: "The richest people are related to the fossil fuel industry and they get richer by bribing right wing politicians to do nothing."

 

Yeah, there are a few on the list, but none at the top of the list, and none of them are "...bribing right wing politicians to do nothing." 

 

"Honesty is not a left-wing value."