UN sounds alarm over record-breaking temperature rise

[up2u2]

The only silencing attempts going on are from the "climate change" political movement.

Suppression of dissenting views is almost the only Green/Left strategy, because they know they would lose bigtime in the marketplace of free ideas. Their little 'safe spaces' need protection from anything that might be 'Right Wing'.

They can't abide even minor deviation from the True Climate Faith, so forced tattooings, destruction of careers, prosecution, banning from the airwaves, executions of their opponents are things they truly believe in, much like several other unsavory political regimes of the 20th century.

You have some sort of polling information to cite to back up your statement. As I recall, you seem a little weak on that score. A few pages back you claimed disbelief in human caused climate change was on the decline. I cited a poll that showed actually it was at an 8 year high. You replied...well you didn't say anything, did you?

This kind of nonsense, citing the extreme views of a few, and tarring 98,4 percent of climate scientists and others with it, is typical of your approach to the question of climate change.

98.4 percent?

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

Please fasteddie really important you check your sources. James Taylor is part of the Climate Denier Heartland Institute (the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial) funded by Exxon and Koch Bros. and every bogus Right Wing Climate Denier 'Institute', 'Foundation' and 'Think Tank' on the planet. It is also published in a pro Climate Denial. The actual motto of Forbes Magazine is 'The Capitalists Tool'.

Taylor is continually found to be misleading to outright lying in his 'opinion pieces'

James Taylor Caught Doctoring the '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

One thing James Taylor has NEVER done is to present an Article for peer review. There's a very good reason for that. It is absolute Climate Denier drivel with no factual basis underpinning it.

Anything written by James Taylor should be removed from the publication and popped into the shredder.

[RickBradford]

Come on RB, that closing paragraph is silly. Not just bleeding heart liberals, but everyone except maybe ISIS and some Trump supporters favors better conditions for impoverished children, etc.

Really? The "progressive" Green/Left doesn't believe that. That's why they spend so much time wailing about how the future of "our children and our children's children" is being put at risk by global warming, how capitalists are to blame, and presumably don't care, even about their own children.

Here's one example which directly draws the parallel:

We need to support leaders around the world who do not speak for the big polluters, but who speak for all of humanity, for the indigenous people of the world, for the billions and billions of underprivileged people out there who would be most affected by this. For our children’s children, and for those people out there whose voices have been drowned out by the politics of greed.

Recognise the style? That's from the 2016 Oscars acceptance speech by Leonardo "Gulfstream" di Caprio, owner of one of the world's largest carbon footprints and three-time winner of World Hypocrite of the Year.

It is a theme that has been repeated many times by "progressive" politicians. If, they say, you dare to oppose us in any way on climate change action, you obviously don't care about the future of the planet and are therefore irretrievably evil.

And while only a small minority utter such infantile canards in public, a large proportion of the Green/Left quietly agree with the sentiments as they go about polishing their haloes.

[ilostmypassword]

Come on RB, that closing paragraph is silly. Not just bleeding heart liberals, but everyone except maybe ISIS and some Trump supporters favors better conditions for impoverished children, etc.

Really? The "progressive" Green/Left doesn't believe that. That's why they spend so much time wailing about how the future of "our children and our children's children" is being put at risk by global warming, how capitalists are to blame, and presumably don't care, even about their own children.

Here's one example which directly draws the parallel:

We need to support leaders around the world who do not speak for the big polluters, but who speak for all of humanity, for the indigenous people of the world, for the billions and billions of underprivileged people out there who would be most affected by this. For our children’s children, and for those people out there whose voices have been drowned out by the politics of greed.

Recognise the style? That's from the 2016 Oscars acceptance speech by Leonardo "Gulfstream" di Caprio, owner of one of the world's largest carbon footprints and three-time winner of World Hypocrite of the Year.

It is a theme that has been repeated many times by "progressive" politicians. If, they say, you dare to oppose us in any way on climate change action, you obviously don't care about the future of the planet and are therefore irretrievably evil.

And while only a small minority utter such infantile canards in public, a large proportion of the Green/Left quietly agree with the sentiments as they go about polishing their haloes.

Do you have any hard evidence as opposed to empty generalization and cherry-picking quotes?

[thaibeachlovers]

Come on RB, that closing paragraph is silly. Not just bleeding heart liberals, but everyone except maybe ISIS and some Trump supporters favors better conditions for impoverished children, etc.

Really? The "progressive" Green/Left doesn't believe that. That's why they spend so much time wailing about how the future of "our children and our children's children" is being put at risk by global warming, how capitalists are to blame, and presumably don't care, even about their own children.

Here's one example which directly draws the parallel:

We need to support leaders around the world who do not speak for the big polluters, but who speak for all of humanity, for the indigenous people of the world, for the billions and billions of underprivileged people out there who would be most affected by this. For our children’s children, and for those people out there whose voices have been drowned out by the politics of greed.

Recognise the style? That's from the 2016 Oscars acceptance speech by Leonardo "Gulfstream" di Caprio, owner of one of the world's largest carbon footprints and three-time winner of World Hypocrite of the Year.

It is a theme that has been repeated many times by "progressive" politicians. If, they say, you dare to oppose us in any way on climate change action, you obviously don't care about the future of the planet and are therefore irretrievably evil.

And while only a small minority utter such infantile canards in public, a large proportion of the Green/Left quietly agree with the sentiments as they go about polishing their haloes.

Do you have any hard evidence as opposed to empty generalization and cherry-picking quotes?

It's a FACT that Di Caprio is a "do as I say, not what I do" hypocrite that flies around in a private jet. Need any more "hard evidence"?

Regardless, there is no "hard evidence" available on either side. It's all based on computer modelling, and all things computer related are governed by the "garbage in garbage out" factor, ie a computer will produce whatever result the programmer wants it to.

The world is getting warmer- not where I am. It's so cold I wish a bit of that warming everyone is on about would set up shop here.

[RickBradford]

Do you have any hard evidence as opposed to empty generalization and cherry-picking quotes?

Hard evidence of what?

• That Leonardo di Caprio has a gigantic carbon footprint?
  
• That he is a vast hypocrite over climate matters?
  
• That politicians, NGOs and journalists routinely and publicly accuse industry of not caring for the future of the planet and for the children of succeeding generations?
  
• That the "progressive" Green/Left broadly shares that viewpoint?
  

The answer is Yes, in all cases. And it won't take you long, through Google, to find that out for yourself.

[up2u2]

Really? The "progressive" Green/Left doesn't believe that. That's why they spend so much time wailing about how the future of "our children and our children's children" is being put at risk by global warming, how capitalists are to blame, and presumably don't care, even about their own children.

Here's one example which directly draws the parallel:

Recognise the style? That's from the 2016 Oscars acceptance speech by Leonardo "Gulfstream" di Caprio, owner of one of the world's largest carbon footprints and three-time winner of World Hypocrite of the Year.

It is a theme that has been repeated many times by "progressive" politicians. If, they say, you dare to oppose us in any way on climate change action, you obviously don't care about the future of the planet and are therefore irretrievably evil.

And while only a small minority utter such infantile canards in public, a large proportion of the Green/Left quietly agree with the sentiments as they go about polishing their haloes.

Starting to rant and rave a little now RB. The last gasps of a defeated argument.

[boomerangutang]

That's not good enough. Yes, all of us — or those of us in the 97.1% or 98.4% or 99.999%, whatever the figure du jour is — believe in climate change and that man's activities have the ability to impact climate.

But that leaves unanswered the really important questions:

a ) Is the warming beneficial or dangerous for the foreseeable future? What are the economic and social trade-offs between acting now or later?

b ) What would be the best actions to take if climate change is regarded overall as dangerous?

c ) Can those actions be made effective and globally implemented?

The answer to c ) at least, is clear, after the conclusion of the Paris conference. No, actions proposed by the UN cannot be made effective and globally implemented.

There are many things that can be done to benefit humanity, if we diverted even a small portion of the money currently being p**sed away on pointless climate activities. How about elimination of malaria? Reducing malnutrition? Sanitation and clean water? Basic education?

No, the Green/Left, for whom feelings are more important than facts, and whose personal vanity projects are far more important to them than the lives of children in the Third World, would far rather keep frantically virtue signalling by feel-good fantasy projects such as shoving up armies of useless windmills which do nothing for the climate, but enrich landowners, bankers and organised crime.

Come on RB, that closing paragraph is silly. Not just bleeding heart liberals, but everyone except maybe ISIS and some Trump supporters favors better conditions for impoverished children, etc.

Wind power is more of an energy-related issue than a climate issue. Yet, the more power generated by clean alternatives, the less power needed by fossil fuels and nuclear = less smog and toxicity. Just last month was the first month ever that Scotland produced more power from renewables than by coal. Australia has a functional model for large scale power generation from waves. There are improvements coming forth week by week, mostly by scientists in farang countries.

As for you Q's:

A. I believe that overall, warming is more dangerous for future. Reasons: more & swifter desertification, coral reefs dying (that's where most fish and other marine species get started), flooding of cities, spread of disease (affecting people and other species), are some reasons.

Q's B and C have been addressed at length in these sorts of threads and all over the internet. I don't want to write a treatise here and now.

I don't disagree ( again ) with your 2nd paragraph, but "renewables" are a remedy available only to the wealthy countries. Most people live in poor countries and use carbon.

Even Saudi had renewable energy in the early 90s when I went to visit their research facility. They won't replace their oil based power though, as they simply have a load of cheap ( to them ) oil to use, despite having plenty of free sun power to use if they wanted.

As for myself, I put the lack of will to use renewables in the west to greed and power. Till there is political benefit to the ruling classes to do more little will change. My most relevant example is the GW/ CC mob's desire to hold conferences in exotic places entailing vast use of carbon to move them and their entourages around the world when they could do it all with video conferencing.

When the so called "scientists" and their political paymasters are prepared to set an example, I'll start believing that they might have a point.

Re B and C, they may have been addressed, but that is as far as it goes. Talk is cheap, though for the GW/ CC crowd it's actually expensive for the taxpayer, but talking doesn't actually change anything.

""renewables" are a remedy available only to the wealthy countries"

Do people use hot water in poor countries? Just that one tiny slice of the issue, there are are viable cheap ways to heat water without wood or fossil fuels or nuclear. I've put together several passive solar heating arrays, none costing more than $60.

" I put the lack of will to use renewables in the west....."

A large majority of westerners are keen about renewable and clean energy. It's only people who have a vested interest in fossil fuels/nuclear who are stuck in archaic ways of thinking. Oh, and old fashioned thinkers who think the touch tone phone of the 60's was the height of technology.

Read up, if you're sincerely interested in what's going on with renewable clean energy. There's a whole lot going on, much of it viable and already on-line. It's not just raw-foodists with dreadlocks who are able to think ahead. $26 million/year execs like the ding-dong at Standard Oil and Trumpster-types will continue to drag their feet (trying to keep the US stuck in 1950's mentality) but the majority of folks worldwide sincerely want clean renewables.

Trump recently made a comment to coal miners in WV, using an analogy with ozone-depleting hair spray. Yet another proof of how his thinking is glazed in the 1950's. Arrested development. The US and the world needs leaders who can think ahead. Who are apprised of developments. We don't old fuddy duddies like your octogorian Uncle Clarence who think that Hitler is still hiding out in Argentina.

[ilostmypassword]

Do you have any hard evidence as opposed to empty generalization and cherry-picking quotes?

Hard evidence of what?

• That Leonardo di Caprio has a gigantic carbon footprint?
• That he is a vast hypocrite over climate matters?
• That politicians, NGOs and journalists routinely and publicly accuse industry of not caring for the future of the planet and for the children of succeeding generations?
• That the "progressive" Green/Left broadly shares that viewpoint?

The answer is Yes, in all cases. And it won't take you long, through Google, to find that out for yourself.

I'm talking about what percentage of scientists or ngos subscrbe to the views you cite. You do this all the time. Just recently in this thread you claimed that belief in human caused climate change among the public was shrinking. I cited a poll that said it was at an 8 year high What was your response? Nothing. You were on to the next empty generalization.

[thaibeachlovers]

That's not good enough. Yes, all of us — or those of us in the 97.1% or 98.4% or 99.999%, whatever the figure du jour is — believe in climate change and that man's activities have the ability to impact climate.

But that leaves unanswered the really important questions:

a ) Is the warming beneficial or dangerous for the foreseeable future? What are the economic and social trade-offs between acting now or later?

b ) What would be the best actions to take if climate change is regarded overall as dangerous?

c ) Can those actions be made effective and globally implemented?

The answer to c ) at least, is clear, after the conclusion of the Paris conference. No, actions proposed by the UN cannot be made effective and globally implemented.

There are many things that can be done to benefit humanity, if we diverted even a small portion of the money currently being p**sed away on pointless climate activities. How about elimination of malaria? Reducing malnutrition? Sanitation and clean water? Basic education?

No, the Green/Left, for whom feelings are more important than facts, and whose personal vanity projects are far more important to them than the lives of children in the Third World, would far rather keep frantically virtue signalling by feel-good fantasy projects such as shoving up armies of useless windmills which do nothing for the climate, but enrich landowners, bankers and organised crime.

Come on RB, that closing paragraph is silly. Not just bleeding heart liberals, but everyone except maybe ISIS and some Trump supporters favors better conditions for impoverished children, etc.

Wind power is more of an energy-related issue than a climate issue. Yet, the more power generated by clean alternatives, the less power needed by fossil fuels and nuclear = less smog and toxicity. Just last month was the first month ever that Scotland produced more power from renewables than by coal. Australia has a functional model for large scale power generation from waves. There are improvements coming forth week by week, mostly by scientists in farang countries.

As for you Q's:

A. I believe that overall, warming is more dangerous for future. Reasons: more & swifter desertification, coral reefs dying (that's where most fish and other marine species get started), flooding of cities, spread of disease (affecting people and other species), are some reasons.

Q's B and C have been addressed at length in these sorts of threads and all over the internet. I don't want to write a treatise here and now.

I don't disagree ( again ) with your 2nd paragraph, but "renewables" are a remedy available only to the wealthy countries. Most people live in poor countries and use carbon.

Even Saudi had renewable energy in the early 90s when I went to visit their research facility. They won't replace their oil based power though, as they simply have a load of cheap ( to them ) oil to use, despite having plenty of free sun power to use if they wanted.

As for myself, I put the lack of will to use renewables in the west to greed and power. Till there is political benefit to the ruling classes to do more little will change. My most relevant example is the GW/ CC mob's desire to hold conferences in exotic places entailing vast use of carbon to move them and their entourages around the world when they could do it all with video conferencing.

When the so called "scientists" and their political paymasters are prepared to set an example, I'll start believing that they might have a point.

Re B and C, they may have been addressed, but that is as far as it goes. Talk is cheap, though for the GW/ CC crowd it's actually expensive for the taxpayer, but talking doesn't actually change anything.

""renewables" are a remedy available only to the wealthy countries"

Do people use hot water in poor countries? Just that one tiny slice of the issue, there are are viable cheap ways to heat water without wood or fossil fuels or nuclear. I've put together several passive solar heating arrays, none costing more than $60.

" I put the lack of will to use renewables in the west....."

A large majority of westerners are keen about renewable and clean energy. It's only people who have a vested interest in fossil fuels/nuclear who are stuck in archaic ways of thinking. Oh, and old fashioned thinkers who think the touch tone phone of the 60's was the height of technology.

Read up, if you're sincerely interested in what's going on with renewable clean energy. There's a whole lot going on, much of it viable and already on-line. It's not just raw-foodists with dreadlocks who are able to think ahead. $26 million/year execs like the ding-dong at Standard Oil and Trumpster-types will continue to drag their feet (trying to keep the US stuck in 1950's mentality) but the majority of folks worldwide sincerely want clean renewables.

Trump recently made a comment to coal miners in WV, using an analogy with ozone-depleting hair spray. Yet another proof of how his thinking is glazed in the 1950's. Arrested development. The US and the world needs leaders who can think ahead. Who are apprised of developments. We don't old fuddy duddies like your octogorian Uncle Clarence who think that Hitler is still hiding out in Argentina.

I've put together several passive solar heating arrays, none costing more than $60.

You spent $60, LOL. I could make one for less than 500 baht, using some water pipe, black paint, and an old 44 gallon drum ( or anything similar size ). Unfortunately, millions of people can't afford 500 baht, and for many, their water has to be carried from miles away on someone's head.

There are people that have never owned a phone, never mind a 60s touch tone phone.

Lets stop thinking that everyone lives in western style societies, puleese.

[thaibeachlovers]

Do you have any hard evidence as opposed to empty generalization and cherry-picking quotes?

Hard evidence of what?

• That Leonardo di Caprio has a gigantic carbon footprint?
• That he is a vast hypocrite over climate matters?
• That politicians, NGOs and journalists routinely and publicly accuse industry of not caring for the future of the planet and for the children of succeeding generations?
• That the "progressive" Green/Left broadly shares that viewpoint?

The answer is Yes, in all cases. And it won't take you long, through Google, to find that out for yourself.

I'm talking about what percentage of scientists or ngos subscrbe to the views you cite. You do this all the time. Just recently in this thread you claimed that belief in human caused climate change among the public was shrinking. I cited a poll that said it was at an 8 year high What was your response? Nothing. You were on to the next empty generalization.

Unfortunately, for the vast majority of the world's population, they will never have the luxury of contributing to polls about something they never heard of. Either they are rich and looking to buy the biggest engine car they can, or they are out looking for wood to cook dinner on.

How can anyone try and tell us that "people" care about GW/ CC when the car dealers are doing great selling big cars by the millions?

[RickBradford]

I'm talking about what percentage of scientists or ngos subscrbe to the views you cite.

Well, I doubt that scientists have done much analysis of di Caprio's carbon footprint and as far as I know, no poll has been taken on the matter.

However, if they read newspapers, they will know that he flew 8,000 miles in his private jet over a 2-day period last month to pick up, of all things, an environmental stewardship award.

As for the NGOs, I imagine they would avoid calling this sort of thing hypocrisy, because they are often guilty of similar, if less spectacularly unhelpful, actions.

I mean, did a delegation from the International Potato Centre really have to fly all the way from Peru to Paris for the 2015 climate talks? Or the Maryknoll Sisters' Office for Global Concerns? The Global Peace Initiative of Women? The Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation?

As someone noted: "I will start to believe in dangerous man-made climate change, when the people who tell me that they believe in it, start acting like they believe in it."

[up2u2]

"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

announces 11th straight month of record breaking temperatures".

For March the average global temperatures set an all time record at +2.2^OF above the 1880 - 2016 baseline average.

Apparently this was a the longest streak in NOAA's 137 year climate record.

Also the heat impacted on the Arctic sea ice extent with 431,000 square miles below average. Which was a further 5,000 square mile reduction from 2015.

Hot and getting hotter. Interesting to see the heat in the Upper Troposphere being detected. It has taken about three months for it to get there. RSS satellites are beginning to detect it now. That was the Climate Denier argument saying that satellites were not detecting heating in the upper Troposphere so it isn't all that big a deal. Well it is there now.

Full Detailed NOAA Report and graphics

[up2u2]

I'm talking about what percentage of scientists or ngos subscrbe to the views you cite.

Well, I doubt that scientists have done much analysis of di Caprio's carbon footprint and as far as I know, no poll has been taken on the matter.

However, if they read newspapers, they will know that he flew 8,000 miles in his private jet over a 2-day period last month to pick up, of all things, an environmental stewardship award.

As for the NGOs, I imagine they would avoid calling this sort of thing hypocrisy, because they are often guilty of similar, if less spectacularly unhelpful, actions.

I mean, did a delegation from the International Potato Centre really have to fly all the way from Peru to Paris for the 2015 climate talks? Or the Maryknoll Sisters' Office for Global Concerns? The Global Peace Initiative of Women? The Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation?

As someone noted: "I will start to believe in dangerous man-made climate change, when the people who tell me that they believe in it, start acting like they believe in it."

What is Di Caprio's carbon footprint amount? How does it compare to a Coal fired power station. Actually throw in AF1 and Gores private jet too. Get back to me.

[RickBradford]

"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announces 11th straight month of record breaking temperatures".

For March the average global temperatures set an all time record at +2.2^OF above the 1880 - 2016 baseline average.

A very feeble attempt -- posting the March figures when the April figures are already available. It would make equal sense to write:

"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announces fall of 0.23F in temperatures in April."

[up2u2]

"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announces 11th straight month of record breaking temperatures".

For March the average global temperatures set an all time record at +2.2^OF above the 1880 - 2016 baseline average.

A very feeble attempt -- posting the March figures when the April figures are already available. It would make equal sense to write:

"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announces fall of 0.23F in temperatures in April."

NOAA Global Summary Information - April 2016

"The April temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was +1.98°F above the 20th century average of 56.7°F."

NOAA Detailed report for April 2016

[RickBradford]

^^^

Yes, so it's not "hot and getting hotter".

It's hot and getting cooler.

As the El Nino fades, temperatures will continue to fall through 2016 and 2017, most analysts believe.

Which means that trying to make a point about the temperature for a single month is rather pointless.

[up2u2]

I have never taken a great deal of notice of Al Gores 'An Inconvenient Truth'. In fact I haven't even watched the documentary itself. For me the trailers always discussed the science on GW and CC that I was familiar with so they never really prompted me to watch it. Maybe I was a little ahead of the curve so for me it looked at going over the science that I was already familiar with.

I did notice that Al Gore came in for some continual vitriolic attacks from the polluting Fossil Fuel funded Climate Denier blog-a-sphere. They just fell short of hysterical frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of his name. I just brushed it off that ihe Inconvenient Truth interfered with their continuing profit margins.

I was not aware, however, that The Inconvenient Truth won Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prizes, the 11th grossing American documentary and won an Oscar too boot. So I can see why the Climate Deniers had to go after him hard and demonise him in an attempt to silence him.

A really good article by John Cook from Skeptical Science fame on the impact that the documentary The Inconvenient Truth had on everyday people's understanding of GW and CC.

Climatologist Steve Quiring

"An Inconvenient Truth has had a much greater impact on public opinion and public awareness of global climate change than any scientific paper or report."

John Cooks Article in The Conversation

[up2u2]

^^^

Yes, so it's not "hot and getting hotter".

It's hot and getting cooler.

As the El Nino fades, temperatures will continue to fall through 2016 and 2017, most analysts believe.

Which means that trying to make a point about the temperature for a single month is rather pointless.

Oh I see. Of course +2.2 (March) - +1.98 (April) = -0.22 fall in temperature.

Oh man that is so funny. Looks like an Ice Age is just around the corner RB

Climate Deniers you gotta laugh.

[RickBradford]

Here we go again...

Fossil Fuel funded .... Climate Deniers .... polluting ....

It's like Muzak -- repetitive, unoriginal, content-free and quite uninteresting.

[up2u2]

Here we go again...

Fossil Fuel funded .... Climate Deniers .... polluting ....

It's like Muzak -- repetitive, unoriginal, content-free and quite uninteresting.

Juz keepin it real RB. That how I roll

[ilostmypassword]

^^^

Yes, so it's not "hot and getting hotter".

It's hot and getting cooler.

As the El Nino fades, temperatures will continue to fall through 2016 and 2017, most analysts believe.

Which means that trying to make a point about the temperature for a single month is rather pointless.

It's funny. One of the points repeatedly raised in climate denial sites was that 1998 was the highest year for average temperature ever and that average temperatures had fallen since then. What they didn't note at the time was that 1997-1998 was the year of a huge El Nino. , Now we get climate deniers attempting to discount the highest average temperature every by citing El Nino. Apparently El Nino is like a wild card for climate deniers. It can mean whatever they want it to.f (I should note here that it wasn't even true about 1997-98 being the hottest year until recently, but we'll let that pass for now)

Edited June 15, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[boomerangutang]

You spent $60, LOL. I could make one for less than 500 baht, using some water pipe, black paint, and an old 44 gallon drum ( or anything similar size ). Unfortunately, millions of people can't afford 500 baht, and for many, their water has to be carried from miles away on someone's head.

There are people that have never owned a phone, never mind a 60s touch tone phone.

Lets stop thinking that everyone lives in western style societies, puleese.

I'm putting out solutions. What are you and RB doing? Shooting down every suggestion from folks trying to find solutions. So, let's dumb this whole conversation down so you and RB may understand it better. There are rich people, there are well-off people, there are struggling people, and there are very poor people. If I make a suggestion for a $60 passive solar set-up of heating water, it's not for everyone. At best, it may be suitable for 28% of people on the planet. The sort of people who spend about $40/month on average, heating water by electric. There are people, like Trump, who spend thousands of $$'s/month heating water, and there are people like my neighbors who heat water (for cooking) by burning sticks they gather around their bungalo. They never bathe with warm water. So yes, there are all types of people in the world.

Last year I met a man who captains a small pleasure cruise ship, about as long as a tennis court and with 11 crew. The boat is owned by Abrahamov (sp? a Russian Bazzilionalire). They get very rich clients, usually between 2 and 7 at a time. They cruised around the southernmost Burmese islands, Get this: In 9 days, they spent $34,000 just on diesel fuel. That's the sort of disgusting pollution that the super rich put out.

Who do you want to address, in order to make the world less polluted, and less prone to greenhouse affect which leads to global warming? We need to deal with people on all social strata, from poorest to richest. ....and on country levels, also, as happened in Paris.

Defenders of runaway fossil fuel (and nuclear) use often come forth with soggy 3rd grade deflections like; "not everyone is going to do that" or "well what about Obama with Air Force One?" or "do you think that will stop all warming?" . That's childish and deflecting. It reminds me of when I was in 3rd grade and my teacher reprimanded one of the boys for singing during class. She said, "what if everyone sang during class?" I remember thinking, 'what a dumb way to reprimand someone.' Incidentally, that singing boy went on to be Bruce Springstein's guitarist.

[NumbNut]

You spent $60, LOL. I could make one for less than 500 baht, using some water pipe, black paint, and an old 44 gallon drum ( or anything similar size ). Unfortunately, millions of people can't afford 500 baht, and for many, their water has to be carried from miles away on someone's head.

There are people that have never owned a phone, never mind a 60s touch tone phone.

Lets stop thinking that everyone lives in western style societies, puleese.

I'm putting out solutions. What are you and RB doing? Shooting down every suggestion from folks trying to find solutions. So, let's dumb this whole conversation down so you and RB may understand it better. There are rich people, there are well-off people, there are struggling people, and there are very poor people. If I make a suggestion for a $60 passive solar set-up of heating water, it's not for everyone. At best, it may be suitable for 28% of people on the planet. The sort of people who spend about $40/month on average, heating water by electric. There are people, like Trump, who spend thousands of $$'s/month heating water, and there are people like my neighbors who heat water (for cooking) by burning sticks they gather around their bungalo. They never bathe with warm water. So yes, there are all types of people in the world.

Last year I met a man who captains a small pleasure cruise ship, about as long as a tennis court and with 11 crew. The boat is owned by Abrahamov (sp? a Russian Bazzilionalire). They get very rich clients, usually between 2 and 7 at a time. They cruised around the southernmost Burmese islands, Get this: In 9 days, they spent $34,000 just on diesel fuel. That's the sort of disgusting pollution that the super rich put out.

Who do you want to address, in order to make the world less polluted, and less prone to greenhouse affect which leads to global warming? We need to deal with people on all social strata, from poorest to richest. ....and on country levels, also, as happened in Paris.

Defenders of runaway fossil fuel (and nuclear) use often come forth with soggy 3rd grade deflections like; "not everyone is going to do that" or "well what about Obama with Air Force One?" or "do you think that will stop all warming?" . That's childish and deflecting. It reminds me of when I was in 3rd grade and my teacher reprimanded one of the boys for singing during class. She said, "what if everyone sang during class?" I remember thinking, 'what a dumb way to reprimand someone.' Incidentally, that singing boy went on to be Bruce Springstein's guitarist.

Too bad you can't like a post twice. Excellent post Boomer, especially the first paragraph.

[up2u2]

Good post Boomer. It wouldn't matter what scientific evidence or solution you show a Climate Denier they will always come up with some reason why it isn't true or wont work. Guaranteed every time.

[thaibeachlovers]

You spent $60, LOL. I could make one for less than 500 baht, using some water pipe, black paint, and an old 44 gallon drum ( or anything similar size ). Unfortunately, millions of people can't afford 500 baht, and for many, their water has to be carried from miles away on someone's head.

There are people that have never owned a phone, never mind a 60s touch tone phone.

Lets stop thinking that everyone lives in western style societies, puleese.

I'm putting out solutions. What are you and RB doing? Shooting down every suggestion from folks trying to find solutions. So, let's dumb this whole conversation down so you and RB may understand it better. There are rich people, there are well-off people, there are struggling people, and there are very poor people. If I make a suggestion for a $60 passive solar set-up of heating water, it's not for everyone. At best, it may be suitable for 28% of people on the planet. The sort of people who spend about $40/month on average, heating water by electric. There are people, like Trump, who spend thousands of $$'s/month heating water, and there are people like my neighbors who heat water (for cooking) by burning sticks they gather around their bungalo. They never bathe with warm water. So yes, there are all types of people in the world.

Last year I met a man who captains a small pleasure cruise ship, about as long as a tennis court and with 11 crew. The boat is owned by Abrahamov (sp? a Russian Bazzilionalire). They get very rich clients, usually between 2 and 7 at a time. They cruised around the southernmost Burmese islands, Get this: In 9 days, they spent $34,000 just on diesel fuel. That's the sort of disgusting pollution that the super rich put out.

Who do you want to address, in order to make the world less polluted, and less prone to greenhouse affect which leads to global warming? We need to deal with people on all social strata, from poorest to richest. ....and on country levels, also, as happened in Paris.

Defenders of runaway fossil fuel (and nuclear) use often come forth with soggy 3rd grade deflections like; "not everyone is going to do that" or "well what about Obama with Air Force One?" or "do you think that will stop all warming?" . That's childish and deflecting. It reminds me of when I was in 3rd grade and my teacher reprimanded one of the boys for singing during class. She said, "what if everyone sang during class?" I remember thinking, 'what a dumb way to reprimand someone.' Incidentally, that singing boy went on to be Bruce Springstein's guitarist.

What are you and RB doing? Shooting down every suggestion from folks trying to find solutions

How dare you say I never put forth solutions!!!!!!!!! I put forth lots of suggestions, from a giant machine to remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere, population reduction and banning cars in cities, plus others. It's the GW/ CC fanatics that never put any solutions forward.

Why I say nothing will happen is because no leaders have deigned to set an example, no laws have been passed that would make a difference, and frankly, outside of the GW/ CC bandwagon occupiers, no one gives a toss about it.

[up2u2]

I rest my case. lol

[NumbNut]

I rest my case. lol

Hmmm yep. Lol

[RickBradford]

I'm putting out solutions.

There are no such things as solutions in the real world, there are only trade-offs. The moment you intervene somewhere, you benefit one area, and disadvantage another. That is the messy nature of humanity and human society. You can't order things beyond a certain level. Western politics has numerous examples of where politicians tried to "fix" a problem, only to cause a worse one to emerge elsewhere.

You could easily argue, as some ethicists do, that miraculous modern medicine is in fact a disaster, since it has permitted an injurious trebling of human population in 60 years. There are two sides to every story.

Oh, plenty of visionaries thought they could create the perfect society -- Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot all believed in the perfectability of society, that the only thing wrong was "the system", and once we got that right, we'd be headed for Utopia. Once we'd executed everyone who disagreed with us, of course.

The Green/Left believes the same. Shut down all dissent, do it our way, and everything will be perfect. Do as you're told and nobody will get hurt. They're wrong, but too arrogant to learn history's lessons. Thomas Sowell has written very insightful books on this very point, which he calls "The Unconstrained Vision." Well worth reading.

What are you and RB doing?

For myself, what I'm doing, is saying that I disagree with you. I dare say that over 99% of self-sufficient vegan Marxists would find Roman Abramovich's boat cruise "disgusting" but that doesn't mean they are right. Or even that it's important. One boat? It is, in your own terms, a "soggy 3rd grade deflection."

Abramovich is perhaps a bad example, but I'm glad the world has super-rich people like Bill Gates and (the late) Steve Jobs. Because to get that rich, they had to provide products which enriched the lives of literally billions of people. Can Greenpeace say the same? What Gates et al give us can only be orders of magnitude better than a world controlled by moralistic, narcissistic, joyless, controlling and humorless Green/Left apparatchiks desperately polishing their halos.

[up2u2]

and another one lol

[RickBradford]

They get very rich clients, usually between 2 and 7 at a time. They cruised around the southernmost Burmese islands, Get this: In 9 days, they spent $34,000 just on diesel fuel. That's the sort of disgusting pollution that the super rich put out.

So, around $4,000 per day shared by up to 7 people? Disgusting indeed!

In other news, Leonardo "Gulfstream" di Caprio managed on his own to spend $6,600 on fuel for a single-day trip by private jet last month to pick up an "environmental stewardship" award.