Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[RickBradford]

I'm glad we have people like Ms Figueres in such positions, rather than one of the thousand Chinese or American billionaires who see everything purely in how many dollars they can squeeze out of it

I would bet that if Ms Figueres got her way, she could do much more damage to the planet and its inhabitants than a thousand Chinese or American billionaires.

The problem with these modern Green/Left types is that they think everything works by magic; that all you need to do is dream of a utopian future and it will magically appear. They have neither the capacity nor the willingness to think through the consequences of their actions.

To take an example: the UK's energy policy. Flown by noble-sounding dreams of renewable energy, the UK has set a legally binding target to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. It will fail miserably, of course, but the energy policies it has put in place are so ruinous that the country, the 6th biggest economy in the world, is facing electricity blackouts despite having a vast oil field just offshore and large oil and gas deposits onshore.

The landscape is littered with wretched wind turbines; lawyers, the landed gentry, and organised crime are getting rich on carbon subsidies; the average citizen has seen their electricity bills double in 10 years; industry is going offshore to stay competitive; old people are dying in record numbers because they can't afford to heat their homes.

In a final tip of the hat to environmental lunacy, one of the country's biggest power stations, Drax, no longer burns local coal (because coal is 'dirty'). Instead, it ships wood pellets 6,000 kilometers over from American forests to burn instead, at a rate of 7.5 million tons per year. That doesn't cut CO2 emissions, and depletes native forests, but biomass is 'renewable', you see.

It just goes to show how wonderful the world is for people whose mental processes are arrested at the level of a five-year-old.

And just how wonderful the world would be once Ms Figueres had finished playing with it hardly bears thinking about.

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I'm glad we have people like Ms Figueres in such positions, rather than one of the thousand Chinese or American billionaires who see everything purely in how many dollars they can squeeze out of it

I would bet that if Ms Figueres got her way, she could do much more damage to the planet and its inhabitants than a thousand Chinese or American billionaires.

The problem with these modern Green/Left types is that they think everything works by magic; that all you need to do is dream of a utopian future and it will magically appear. They have neither the capacity nor the willingness to think through the consequences of their actions.

To take an example: the UK's energy policy. Flown by noble-sounding dreams of renewable energy, the UK has set a legally binding target to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. It will fail miserably, of course, but the energy policies it has put in place are so ruinous that the country, the 6th biggest economy in the world, is facing electricity blackouts despite having a vast oil field just offshore and large oil and gas deposits onshore.

The landscape is littered with wretched wind turbines; lawyers, the landed gentry, and organised crime are getting rich on carbon subsidies; the average citizen has seen their electricity bills double in 10 years; industry is going offshore to stay competitive; old people are dying in record numbers because they can't afford to heat their homes.

In a final tip of the hat to environmental lunacy, one of the country's biggest power stations, Drax, no longer burns local coal (because coal is 'dirty'). Instead, it ships wood pellets 6,000 kilometers over from American forests to burn instead, at a rate of 7.5 million tons per year. That doesn't cut CO2 emissions, and depletes native forests, but biomass is 'renewable', you see.

It just goes to show how wonderful the world is for people whose mental processes are arrested at the level of a five-year-old.

And just how wonderful the world would be once Ms Figueres had finished playing with it hardly bears thinking about.

Wow, Drax sounds absolutely crazy! Would you flick on some references so we can read up on it?

[RickBradford]

http://forestpolicypub.com/2014/03/17/the-bonfire-of-insanity-woodland-is-shipped-3800-miles-and-burned-in-drax-power/

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

http://forestpolicypub.com/2014/03/17/the-bonfire-of-insanity-woodland-is-shipped-3800-miles-and-burned-in-drax-power/

Thanks for the link. Looks like and interesting conflict over the issue.

From the same publication here another piece putting the counter point:

http://forestpolicypub.com/2014/03/12/study-finds-transatlantic-pellet-trade-results-in-significant-ghg-reduductions-over-fossil-fuels/

"Study finds transatlantic pellet trade results in SIGNIFICANT GHG REDUDUCTIONS over fossil fuels"

Apparently 20% of Swedish energy generation comes from similar biomass burning.

I don't know enough to comment either way on the issue but expect to see far more conundrums like this one where one 'environmental' asset is traded off against another.

E.g., turns out that intensive factory production of livestock may well be better 'environmentally' that pasture/free range farming. If only for the simple reason that the life span of the livestock is so much shorter. And that intensive farming takes up far less acreage of course. All trade offs.

[boomerangutang]

Would Bradford rather see coal and other fossil fuel plants belching smoke over every landscape? Or perhaps nuclear. Yea, that worked well for Chernobyl and Fuku-yo-mother-shima. And before during and after those two N disasters, N-boosters kept saying, "there are no greenhouse gases" (that quote from Thailand's EGAT), and "it's a very cheap way to produce electricity" (a quote from every numbskull in the N industry) .....yea, great. I'll go and buy a parcel of property next to a N power plant for my grandaughter. I'm sure it will be a great place for her to raise her chitlens.

[chuckd]

Here's a report on the solar power industry in the US. As many have said...follow the money.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite $39B in Annual Gov't. Subsidies, Solar Produced 0.5% of Electricity in US

February 17, 2015 - 3:15 PM

By Barbara Hollingsworth

(CNSNews.com) – Despite receiving an estimated $39 billion in annual government subsidies over the past five years, the solar energy industry accounted for just one half of one percent (0.5%) of all the electricity generated in the U.S. during the first 10 months of 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Between January and October of last year, the U.S. produced a total of 3,431,473 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity. But only 15,973 million kWh were generated by solar thermal or photovoltaic (PV) solar modules that use semiconducting materials to convert sunlight into electricity, according to EIA's latest Monthly Energy Review.

Article here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/despite-39b-annual-govt-subsidies-solar-produced-05-electricity

[NeverSure]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The US Department of Defense does not lie.

They all work for Obama.

[Scott]

The DOD is a part of the US gov't, but make no mistake, they march to their own drummer. I worked on several contracts funded by the DOD. The DOD knew what they were doing and why. The gov't was playing politics while the DOD was getting stuff done. The DOD work carefully circumvented some policy directives. A little lower profile, but they are more interested in accuracy than in politics.

Is the document correct? I don't know, but I believe it is based on their best evidence, not on some directive from the White House. The White House may have had a say on whether or not it was publicly released, though.

[Choctastic]

You know they don't really regard GW seriously. If they did they would deal with the problem, at source, instead of taxing and criminalizing the public. Polluting industries would stop polluting the moment you start jailing CEOs. Exchanging pollution for a forest in Botswana is just silly.

Most supporters of the GW scam, only support it because of concerns about environmental pollution. Without this conflation there would be less public support. If your grants are dependent on finding warming, you will find it. If the media are all on the GW team, the public will believe it.

Now they are...

[RickBradford]

Would Bradford rather see coal and other fossil fuel plants belching smoke over every landscape? Or perhaps nuclear. Yea, that worked well for Chernobyl and Fuku-yo-mother-shima. And before during and after those two N disasters, N-boosters kept saying, "there are no greenhouse gases" (that quote from Thailand's EGAT), and "it's a very cheap way to produce electricity" (a quote from every numbskull in the N industry) .....yea, great. I'll go and buy a parcel of property next to a N power plant for my grandaughter. I'm sure it will be a great place for her to raise her chitlens.

1.

Coal plants don't "belch" anything but steam in the Western world, due to the sophisticated scrubbing apparatus now required by law. Drax, in point of fact, is one of the most advanced plants in the world in this regard.

2. The French have been powering the world's 7th biggest economy for 40 years overwhelmingly on nuclear power without any problems.

They may not be very scenic to live next door to, but then again, neither is a sewage plant, or an airport. They would certainly be less intrusive than one of those idiotic wind 'farms'

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The US Department of Defense does not lie.

alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20> alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20>

They all work for Obama.

Cleverly picked upped!!

It's like I said earlier: It's really pretty clear. When the US Department of Defense agrees with me it's because they're telling the truth and when someone else disagrees with the US Department of Defense when they agree with me it means they don't support the troops - they're borderline traitors whose love of Country is in serious, serious question. Of course, when the the US Department of Defense doesn't agree with me it's because they're at the beck and call of an administration I don't like. See, simple really.

[boomerangutang]

Here's a report on the solar power industry in the US. As many have said...follow the money.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite $39B in Annual Gov't. Subsidies, Solar Produced 0.5% of Electricity in US

February 17, 2015 - 3:15 PM

By Barbara Hollingsworth

(CNSNews.com) – Despite receiving an estimated $39 billion in annual government subsidies over the past five years, the solar energy industry accounted for just one half of one percent (0.5%) of all the electricity generated in the U.S. during the first 10 months of 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Between January and October of last year, the U.S. produced a total of 3,431,473 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity. But only 15,973 million kWh were generated by solar thermal or photovoltaic (PV) solar modules that use semiconducting materials to convert sunlight into electricity, according to EIA's latest Monthly Energy Review.

Article here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/despite-39b-annual-govt-subsidies-solar-produced-05-electricity

It's not a fair comparison. The article mentions annual gov't subsidy for solar, but doesn't mention same for fossil fuel industry. Both renewable and fossil fuel energy generation systems have start-up costs, but fossil fuel plants have much more maintenance costs during their lifetimes, and N plants have decommissioning costs and require fenced death zones for 50,000+ years, plus the costs of dealing with spent fuel and other radioactive garbage. Both fossil and N fuel plants have higher insurance premiums and require more security costs. .....and also add in costs of a dirtier environment, and higher medical costs for society,.....

So, when you add up costs (and subsidies) over, let's say, the 50 year lifetime of the different types of power generating facilities, alternative/clean power comes out looking best. The Danes, Germans, Spaniards and the US Army (among others) have realized that. Hopefully the rest of the world aren't far behind in switching to clean renewable sources of energy. Alternatives aren't perfect in every way, but they're a whole lot better than relying on a finite & depletable resource which needs to be mined or sucked out of the earth.

[chuckd]

Here's a report on the solar power industry in the US. As many have said...follow the money.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite $39B in Annual Gov't. Subsidies, Solar Produced 0.5% of Electricity in US

February 17, 2015 - 3:15 PM

By Barbara Hollingsworth

(CNSNews.com) – Despite receiving an estimated $39 billion in annual government subsidies over the past five years, the solar energy industry accounted for just one half of one percent (0.5%) of all the electricity generated in the U.S. during the first 10 months of 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Between January and October of last year, the U.S. produced a total of 3,431,473 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity. But only 15,973 million kWh were generated by solar thermal or photovoltaic (PV) solar modules that use semiconducting materials to convert sunlight into electricity, according to EIA's latest Monthly Energy Review.

Article here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/despite-39b-annual-govt-subsidies-solar-produced-05-electricity

It's not a fair comparison. The article mentions annual gov't subsidy for solar, but doesn't mention same for fossil fuel industry. Both renewable and fossil fuel energy generation systems have start-up costs, but fossil fuel plants have much more maintenance costs during their lifetimes, and N plants have decommissioning costs and require fenced death zones for 50,000+ years, plus the costs of dealing with spent fuel and other radioactive garbage. Both fossil and N fuel plants have higher insurance premiums and require more security costs. .....and also add in costs of a dirtier environment, and higher medical costs for society,.....

So, when you add up costs (and subsidies) over, let's say, the 50 year lifetime of the different types of power generating facilities, alternative/clean power comes out looking best. The Danes, Germans, Spaniards and the US Army (among others) have realized that. Hopefully the rest of the world aren't far behind in switching to clean renewable sources of energy. Alternatives aren't perfect in every way, but they're a whole lot better than relying on a finite & depletable resource which needs to be mined or sucked out of the earth.

I don't know what "fair" has anything to do with, but let's play your game.

If solar energy has been subsidized for the past five years to the tune of $39 Billion in order to produce 0.5% of all energy needs...in order for solar to provide 100% of the energy needs of the US taxpayers would have to subsidize the solar energy industry to the tune of $7.8 TRILLION over that next five year period when solar produces 100% of the US energy needs.

Even the current administration would have trouble spending that much money in just five years.

[canuckamuck]

Solar just isn't ready yet, but it's getting better and new materials like graphene might just give it big bump forward.

[boomerangutang]

Solar just isn't ready yet, but it's getting better and new materials like graphene might just give it big bump forward.

I particularly like 'passive solar' as compared to PV, but PV is ok.

However, the biggest energy policy item should be conservation - on all levels. If people were aware of (and willing to implement) ways of conserving energy use, it would cut down energy needs by over 50%.

Technology developed far faster than human intelligence - could keep up with its use.

[thaibeachlovers]

Well, I suppose it comes down to who you're going to believe: every single national academy of science in the world and the US Department of Defense or ... well, take your pick:

Quadrennial Defense Review: US Department of Defense

http://www.defense.g...14_sdr/qdr.aspx

"Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence." p.30. http://www.defense.g...ense_Review.pdf

When are you and the scientists/ politicians et al on the GW bandwagon going to admit that the real driver of pollution on planet earth is overpopulation? Till a real reduction is made in the birth rate to about 1/1000th ( I just made that number up, which is what the GW sympathisers do with all their so called facts. However, the earth has at least twice the population it can reasonably sustain in harmony with nature ) of what it is now, all the GW supporters are just spouting even more hot air.

Defence Department . I was in the armed forces for a while, and a more useless bunch of leaders would be hard to imagine - which is why I got out.

[thaibeachlovers]

Solar just isn't ready yet, but it's getting better and new materials like graphene might just give it big bump forward.

I particularly like 'passive solar' as compared to PV, but PV is ok.

However, the biggest energy policy item should be conservation - on all levels. If people were aware of (and willing to implement) ways of conserving energy use, it would cut down energy needs by over 50%.

Technology developed far faster than human intelligence - could keep up with its use.

Perhaps not many noticed, but Hawking has said that if we invent real AI it will be the end of humans, as AI will take over.

Looking at humans logically, we are nothing more than a pathogenic parasite on the planet, and probably deserve to be exterminated by Gaia before we exterminate everything else.

[thaibeachlovers]

Solar just isn't ready yet, but it's getting better and new materials like graphene might just give it big bump forward.

GW deniers don't WANT pollution, so bring on the clean power sources.

Funny though, they can't provide enough power for the same cost, so do you think we should pay four times as much, or more, as we do now for electricity? Are you prepared to pay more?

[thaibeachlovers]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating.

This is not true, for 20 years now, and the rest is a scario based on the part that is not true.

The US Department of Defense does not lie.

I can't put as many on here as that statement deserves.

[boomerangutang]

Well, I suppose it comes down to who you're going to believe: every single national academy of science in the world and the US Department of Defense or ... well, take your pick:

Quadrennial Defense Review: US Department of Defense

http://www.defense.g...14_sdr/qdr.aspx

"Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence." p.30. http://www.defense.g...ense_Review.pdf

When are you and the scientists/ politicians et al on the GW bandwagon going to admit that the real driver of pollution on planet earth is overpopulation? Till a real reduction is made in the birth rate to about 1/1000th ( I just made that number up, which is what the GW sympathisers do with all their so called facts. However, the earth has at least twice the population it can reasonably sustain in harmony with nature ) of what it is now, all the GW supporters are just spouting even more hot air.

Defence Department. I was in the armed forces for a while, and a more useless bunch of leaders would be hard to imagine - which is why I got out.

I agree about overpopulation, and have framed it thus: The one best thing a person can do for the health of the environment, is to have less children. Each less child born = less pollution. TBL may believe that there are twice as many people on the planet as there should be, but I put the number between 10 and 20 times the carrying capacity of the planet. I've read some scholarly papers which put the number at 7x.

Since before Biblical times, all religions have been doing all they can to compel their flock to have many babies. It's like multi-level marketing, where each religion is trying like mad to increase their 'downline' of sheeple who believe their myths and put money in the collection plates.

[RickBradford]

The man who has run the UN's main climate body for the past 13 years, and has been the main person pressuring governments worldwide to take immediate action, is in hospital with 'heart problems' as Indian police seek to arrest him for serial sexual harassment.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, 74, is denying the allegations, but has stepped down from the IPCC and a variety of other important climate-related posts in the light of some extraordinary communications submitted as evidence by a 29-year-old woman who worked at his organisation TERI.

Here, Pachauri explains the purity of his love for what he calls his "classical Indian beauty":

I have always treated your body with reverence and as sacred. Even when I “grabbed you body” I had my left hand over your right breast. Did I make even the slightest attempt to hold it in my hand or fondle you there?

Gee, well thanks a lot.

Having disgusted and traumatised this young lady to the extent that she was finally empowered to rebuff him, Pachauri responds in typical fashion:

.. you should reflect on the massive insult you heaped on me by indicating that I was so toxic that you would prefer not to sit next to me on the plane. If that be the case there is no room for any interaction between us. And that has nothing to do with "personal distaste". To me that act of yours represented the ultimate in haughtiness, arrogance and insulting behaviour. If you had any human sensitivity you would have realised what you have done, and possibly apologised.

So, she was in effect sacked for refusing to be groped. This is classic sociopathic behaviour; everything is about 'me', and other people are seen and judged only by how they support, or oppose 'me'.

With such a revolting person in charge of the UN's flagship climate program, no wonder the media are frantically trying to recycle funding allegations against Willie Soon.

For those with a strong stomach for creepy material, the Pachauri messages are at: https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/pachauri_allegations_formatted.pdf

[boomerangutang]

Well, according to deniers, Chinese experts are all wrong also. Read and weep:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/22/394658945/top-beijing-scientist-china-faces-huge-impact-from-climate-change

excerpt: "China's top weather scientist has made a rare official acknowledgement: climate change, he says, could have a "huge impact" on the country's crop yields and infrastructure. Zheng Guogang, the head of China's meteorological administration, tells Xinhua news agency that China is already experiencing temperature increases that outpace those in other parts of the world."

Edited March 23, 2015 by boomerangutang

[RickBradford]

He's not wrong.

If temperatures were to go up (or down) by several degrees Celsius in a short time, then of course there would be repercussions. This is so trivial as to be hardly worth saying. Fall asleep in a snowdrift one night and you can test the truth of that.

In terms of the country's attitude, worth quoting is the recent Chinese book "Low-Carbon Plot" by Gou Hongyang, where he lays out the semi-official line of the Chinese authorities.

The Developed Countries [EU,USA+etc.] are attempting to use the Greenhouse Effect to lock up the development of the Developing world with Morality Manacles. Behind the back of the demonizing of “carbon”, we must recognize that it is the sinister intention of the Developed Countries to attempt to use “carbon” to block the living space of the Developing Countries.

In the eyes of some Westerners, the many developing countries have absolutely no right to enjoy the same standard of life as them.

Developed countries do not in the slightest wish to take any responsibility, they have set up double standards over “carbon emissions”, everywhere reflecting their arrogance and selfishness.

This fits with China's stance at the various useless climate gab-fests of the past decade. They simply don't buy any of the nonsense constantly put out by people such a Christina "Tinkerbell" Figueres and the wretched Ban-ki Moon.

China is only too happy for the West to commit economic suicide and will even sell them the solar panels to achieve it, and that's all.

[boomerangutang]

He's not wrong.

If temperatures were to go up (or down) by several degrees Celsius in a short time, then of course there would be repercussions. This is so trivial as to be hardly worth saying. Fall asleep in a snowdrift one night and you can test the truth of that.

In terms of the country's attitude, worth quoting is the recent Chinese book "Low-Carbon Plot" by Gou Hongyang, where he lays out the semi-official line of the Chinese authorities.

The Developed Countries [EU,USA+etc.] are attempting to use the Greenhouse Effect to lock up the development of the Developing world with Morality Manacles. Behind the back of the demonizing of “carbon”, we must recognize that it is the sinister intention of the Developed Countries to attempt to use “carbon” to block the living space of the Developing Countries.

In the eyes of some Westerners, the many developing countries have absolutely no right to enjoy the same standard of life as them.

Developed countries do not in the slightest wish to take any responsibility, they have set up double standards over “carbon emissions”, everywhere reflecting their arrogance and selfishness.

This fits with China's stance at the various useless climate gab-fests of the past decade. They simply don't buy any of the nonsense constantly put out by people such a Christina "Tinkerbell" Figueres and the wretched Ban-ki Moon.

China is only too happy for the West to commit economic suicide and will even sell them the solar panels to achieve it, and that's all.

wow, that missive, above, paints you in to an interesting corner. So, even though temps are getting warmer and air and water are getting filthier week by week in China, it can be shown to be some sort of twisted western plot - to keep China from developing its industries. Congrats RB, I think you win this week's 'Water Is Not Wet' award.

[RickBradford]

... it can be shown to be some sort of twisted western plot - to keep China from developing its industries. Congrats RB, I think you win this week's 'Water Is Not Wet' award.

*Sigh*.

If you trouble to read my post, you will see that it is not me saying that, but a Chinese author named Gou Hongyang. He is published by the Shanxi Economics Publishing House.

Personally, I don't think it is a Western plot.

For one thing, virtually all of the important figures in the alarmist movement, from Ban-ki Moon and Tinkerbell on down, are hapless bunglers who couldn't organise a p**s-up in a brewery.

[boomerangutang]

more evidence of GW:

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/26/395379216/big-shelves-of-antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-scientists-thought

excerpt: "We are starting to lose more ice at a faster rate; we're accelerating," says Helen Fricker, a climate scientist at University of California, San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. In fact, she says the rate of shrinking has increased by 70 percent over the past decade.

[RickBradford]

more evidence of GW:

http://www.npr.org/2...entists-thought

NPR is whistling, but the dog's out of range. Nobody's buying it any more.

In fact, a recent poll from Gallup shows, the proportion of Americans who rate themselves as "not at all worried" by climate change has doubled from 12% to 24% over the past 25 years.

This is despite 25 years of an absolutely absurd amount of media scaremongering and high-level political activism; the ineffectiveness of their agit-prop is truly amazing.

We perpetually hear about new threats that never seem to materialize (unless you actually believe every weather event is new to our generation and due to climate change).

And as the fear-mongering becomes more far-fetched, the accusations become more hysterical, and the deadlines for action keep being pushed right over the horizon, fewer people seem to really care.

[arjunadawn]

This is such a discredited political narrative woven into science to corner the emotional market mob rule. The science is discredited; this institution is discredited; the agents are opportunists, the data is fudged... its just BS!

[boomerangutang]

more evidence of GW:

http://www.npr.org/2...entists-thought

NPR is whistling, but the dog's out of range. Nobody's buying it any more.

In fact, a recent poll from Gallup shows, the proportion of Americans who rate themselves as "not at all worried" by climate change has doubled from 12% to 24% over the past 25 years.

This is despite 25 years of an absolutely absurd amount of media scaremongering and high-level political activism; the ineffectiveness of their agit-prop is truly amazing.

We perpetually hear about new threats that never seem to materialize (unless you actually believe every weather event is new to our generation and due to climate change).

And as the fear-mongering becomes more far-fetched, the accusations become more hysterical, and the deadlines for action keep being pushed right over the horizon, fewer people seem to really care.

You can't counter the science (of Antarctic ice melting fast), so you devolve to name-calling. Why am I not surprised. I agree that a large % of Americans are unsure whether there's GW. It shows the success of the loud and vocal minority (Fox News fans and people tied into the fossil fuel corporations, mostly). Americans are known to flock to weird ideas. Most believe in virgin birth (Christians), and couldn't find Ecuador on a map of the world. Of course, if a Gallup Poll frames a question about GW, with the wording, "are you personally worried....." then most Americans can say they're not worried. Most Americans live outside Florida and NYC and Boston for starters, so they don't have to personally worry about their homes getting flooded. Plus, major flooding, Biblical droughts, bigger tornadoes/hurricanes/tidal surges will be coming decades in the future, when most Americans taking a survey will either be dead or in gated retirement communities. Plus, it's not a popularity contest nor a matter of what spooks Americans the most. GW is a phenomena which will affect people all over the world - mostly in coastal areas, and in deserts.

Americans are like most people elsewhere: they care about their immediate families, their homes, their cars, their electronic devices and (if eligible) their SS and pension payments. They're not going to worry about some Pacific island getting swamped, beyond its interest as a news article to read while sipping coffee.

[boomerangutang]

This is such a discredited political narrative woven into science to corner the emotional market mob rule. The science is discredited; this institution is discredited; the agents are opportunists, the data is fudged... its just BS!

So, which side of the debate do you rest your case? Which science is discredited? ....which institution? which data fudged?