Climate activists express concerns for planet after Trump win

[Jingthing]

20 hours ago, sixlegs said:

With electing him the Americans made themselves truly represented by someone who really reflects what kind of society and people they are. At least, no one will have any uncertainity about it now.

Well, about HALF of us, anyway.

Meet the next likely EPA cabinet officer.

Yes, climate activists are correct to be concerned.

trump will be DENIER in chief.

Quote

Donald Trump is rumored to appoint Myron Ebell, a climate change denier, as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/myron-ebell-new-donald-trump-head-of-the-epa-environmental-protection-agency-appointment-global-warming-climate-change-denier/

 

[boomerangutang]

30 minutes ago, dcutman said:

Go preach to somebody else.

 

Well, another denier who can't factually or scientifically disprove any of the items I mentioned.   It's like trying to tell a Christian that a virgin can't make a baby.  They simply don't want to hear it - or any science which disproves it.

[RickBradford]

Quote

According to many scientists we are past the point of no return anyway? I think that means we are all jacked no matter who is president.

 

According to many activists we are past the point of no return anyway. But 97% of scientists know that such predictions are beyond the bounds of their expertise. Scientists are only human, however, and a few of them have weighed in on this topic with cataclysmic forecasts.

 

So, it is activists who make infantile comments like that of Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada: “We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it. Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We no longer have decades; we have hours.”

 

Or, that expert Bob Geldof: "The world can decide in a fit of madness to kill itself. There will be a mass extinction event. That could happen on your watch. We may not get to 2030. We need to address the problem of climate change urgently." 

 

Meanwhile, proper scientists are much more rational.

 

Prof. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree.”

 

There are thousands of prominent scientists who have made similar reassuring statements. But there’s a certain anti-scientific mentality which sees doom and scary stuff around every corner. Carl Sagan called it “the demon-haunted world”. Prominent in this world are journalists and their best friends, the shrill activists.

 

“A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a 'serious international problem' ,” - New York Times.

 

That was written in 1947, and in 1961, the same paper said: “After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.”

 

The LA Times saw it this way: “Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age.”

 

Sound familiar?

[onthesoi]

11 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Interesting you mention the ice cores, as I was going to

What they show is a fluctuation over thousands of years of the CO2 content of the air in the snowfall and ice . It is inconclusive as they show CO2 levels have been up and down over all those years, when humans had not long had fire never mind hairsprays, cars, airplanes etc

Its wrong to say the ice core data is inconclusive, while there are some ebbs and flows(as there are in all complex natural systems.) the trend shown by the ice core data is clear and accepted, peer reviewed science.......to quote the BAS:

Antarctic ice cores show us that the concentration of CO2 was stable over the last millennium until the early 19th century. It then started to rise, and its concentration is now nearly 40% higher than it was before the industrial revolution

 

........you can drill into the detail here:

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

 

Or maybe a picture says it better:

 

[onthesoi]

7 hours ago, Linzz said:

 

I don't think there are many GW deniers, but the argument is if it's man made or not.

 

The deniers are the idiots who say the current warming trend is unrelated to human activity...or more specifically the industrial revolution.

 

They are idiots because nearly all the scientific data points the finger at humans... the denialist counter arguement to the actual science are swivel eyed regurgitations from crank websites funded by oil and mining interests.

 

There are parallels here with the activities of the tobbacco lobby in the previous centuary with their smoking does not cause cancer shenanigans.

[ClutchClark]

Well this might be a unique position but I do believe in GW and I do consider it to be the result of human populations...atleast the acceleration we see today. 

 

But here is the kicker. 

 

I don't give a damn and I don't think we should do a thing about it in the form of carbon tax and all these other burdens on industry IF China & India are not going to curb their industries as well. 

 

Why? Because if China & India don't curb their contribution to Carbon output and GW then it won't matter one iota whether we do or not--the **** is still going to hit the fan. 

 

Instead, the US should determine how GW will impact our country and plan for adaptive measures now today. Thats where the smart money is invested. 

 

Primarily, how will GW affect our agriculture (rainfall & insects). 

 

The Libs are stuck in this paradigm that they can stop GW. Actually, they hope to make a financial killing by their current approach of buying & selling carbon credits. Al Gore just wants to profit. The man has $30,000 annnual energy bills at his mega-residence. He is duping all these liberals who think recycling their wine bottles is actually going to save the planet.

 

The current US approach of thinking we can stop GW is a broken paradigm. 

 

Adapt.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by ClutchClark

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, onthesoi said:

 

The deniers are the idiots who say the current warming trend is unrelated to human activity...or more specifically the industrial revolution.

 

They are idiots because nearly all the scientific data points the finger at humans... the denialist counter arguement to the actual science are swivel eyed regurgitations from crank websites funded by oil and mining interests.

 

There are parallels here with the activities of the tobbacco lobby in the previous centuary with their smoking does not cause cancer shenanigans.

It used to amaze me how believers in dangerous man-made global warming have so little imagination or originality.

 

It’s always the same — lame name-calling (denialist, crank), dumb strawman arguments which misrepresent the skeptic position, tired slurs about funding (oil & mining interests) and pointless analogies (tobacco industry).

 

But then I realized that their rants are all the same because they all aim at the same goal — not to debate anything seriously, but to shut up all opposition to their precious beliefs.

 

I guess that’s why they lost. As with Hillary, though, they never notice until it’s too late.

[maewang99]

dismissing climate as 'some guys needing funding' isn't a dime's difference from insisting Kim Jung Un's granddaddy was born on a magic mountain.... a ****real**** magic mountain.

 

Kevin Andersen U Manchester ? needs funding???

Richard Alley U Penn??? are you kidding me?

Noam Chomsky.... all but 100% retired at age 90 something.

and me? age 48 retired.  don't need any kind of funding.

etc.

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by maewang99

[onthesoi]

14 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It used to amaze me how believers in dangerous man-made global warming have so little imagination or originality.

 

It’s always the same — lame name-calling (denialist, crank), dumb strawman arguments which misrepresent the skeptic position, tired slurs about funding (oil & mining interests) and pointless analogies (tobacco industry).

 

But then I realized that their rants are all the same because they all aim at the same goal — not to debate anything seriously, but to shut up all opposition to their precious beliefs.

 

I guess that’s why they lost. As with Hillary, though, they never notice until it’s too late.

 

So you wont be providing any actual science to the contrary?

 

Signature MO of the denialist.

 

Your other post where you claim real scientists dont think global warming is dangerous is beyond ridiculous...lolz

Edited November 12, 2016 by onthesoi

[RickBradford]

To the contrary of what?

 

Your screed didn't contain any science to be contrary to, just a lot of Green/Left buzzwords like 'denialist', 'crank', 'idiot', 'swivel-eyed' etc etc etc.

 

How does one provide science contrary to that nonsense?

[onthesoi]

Just now, RickBradford said:

To the contrary of what?

 

Your screed didn't contain any science to be contrary to, just a lot of Green/Left buzzwords like 'denialist', 'crank', 'idiot', 'swivel-eyed' etc etc etc.

 

How does one provide science contrary to that nonsense?

 

So you must have missed my link to the British Artic Survey data?

 

Attention to detail is not one of your strong points it seems!

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, maewang99 said:

dismissing climate as some guys needing funding is any less dumber than insisting Kim Jung Un's granddaddy was born on a magic mountain.... and not the one in Valencia.. a ****real**** magic mountain.

 

Kevin Andersen U Manchester ? needs funding???

Richard Alley U Penn??? are you kidding me?

Noam Chomsky.... all but 100% retired at age 90 something.

etc.

 

who are you responding to?

[ClutchClark]

5 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

So you must have missed my link to the British Artic Survey data?

 

Attention to detail is not one of your strong points it seems!

 

Your name calling seems to prove his point.

[RickBradford]

Quote

So you must have missed my link to the British Artic Survey data?

 

No, I saw it. It is pointless. We all know that CO2 levels have risen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and as a result of it.  We all know that the temperature has risen over the same period. We all know that there is a plausible, and probable link between the two. This is such trivial stuff, Climate 101.

 

But this does not necessarily translate into a need for 'concern for the planet', which was the OP topic. Unable to think of any science to make such a link, you fall back on silly name-calling like 'denialist' and 'crank'.

 

Climate science is not one of your strong points, it seems

[Boon Mee]

: Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition.  I’m really starting to feel good about my vote here.

Indeed...

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

14 hours ago, onthesoi said:

Its wrong to say the ice core data is inconclusive, while there are some ebbs and flows(as there are in all complex natural systems.) the trend shown by the ice core data is clear and accepted, peer reviewed science.......to quote the BAS:

Antarctic ice cores show us that the concentration of CO2 was stable over the last millennium until the early 19th century. It then started to rise, and its concentration is now nearly 40% higher than it was before the industrial revolution

 

........you can drill into the detail here:

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

 

Or maybe a picture says it better:

 

I said before, statistics. Just pick the bits you want to prove the theory.

If you check the other data there has been peaks caused by volcanic activity etc that are far bigger than what has happened since the UK started the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th century.

Even 8000 years is but a drop in the ocean in the history of Earth's weather.

The overpopulation by humans however is a serious problem that nobody is willing to confront.

Maybe they should tax sex? Then the bureaucrats might take notice!