The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

From Wikipedia:

 

That is a very flattering description of the Economist.

 

When the Economist uses the word "liberal", they mean liberal in the classic sense, meaning minimum government interference in business and individual affairs.  A conservative, in the classic sense, is someone who believes the government (and sometimes the church) should significantly guide/regulate/mandate business and individual behavior. 

 

It is difficult to agree on definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" as the words are used in modern US English, but they are not the same as the classic meanings.

[boomerangutang]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

That is a very flattering description of the Economist.

When the Economist uses the word "liberal", they mean liberal in the classic sense, meaning minimum government interference in business and individual affairs.  A conservative, in the classic sense, is someone who believes the government (and sometimes the church) should significantly guide/regulate/mandate business and individual behavior. 

It is difficult to agree on definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" as the words are used in modern US English, but they are not the same as the classic meanings.

You're right.  It's so hypocritical when we hear conservative right wingers espouse platitudes, but then do the opposite.  a few of a bazillion examples:

 

"Let the marketplace decide who is successful and who fails"

Yet, right-wingers are the first in line screaming for gov't bail-outs, when things go bad.

 

"Lessen gov't interference in our lives."

Yet; look who always wants to control women's individual reproductive decisions.

 

"Lower taxes"

Yet look who gets the most benefits and hand-outs from taxes.  It's rich conservatives.

 

As for climate change:   Right-wingers want gov't to stay out of the equation, but the same corp heads love the subsidies/tax-breaks/kick-backs/price-supports they get from gov't for those in the fossil fuels industry.  .....and car makers which use fossil fuels engines.  It was just 9 years ago that Ford and GM got massive bail-outs - to add to the many other hand-outs they've gotten over the past decades.   

 

       When Carter was prez, Congress approved multi-million dollar grants to the Big Three automakers - to develop better batteries.   When did we, the consumers, get those great new batteries which were promised?   Never.   The Big 3 just took the money, and top execs bought bigger yachts, and took trips to Bora Bora and St. Moritz.

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

You're right.  It's so hypocritical when we hear conservative right wingers espouse platitudes, but then do the opposite.  a few of a bazillion examples:

 

"Let the marketplace decide who is successful and who fails"

Yet, right-wingers are the first in line screaming for gov't bail-outs, when things go bad.

 

"Lessen gov't interference in our lives."

Yet; look who always wants to control women's individual reproductive decisions.

 

"Lower taxes"

Yet look who gets the most benefits and hand-outs from taxes.  It's rich conservatives.

 

As for climate change:   Right-wingers want gov't to stay out of the equation, but the same corp heads love the subsidies/tax-breaks/kick-backs/price-supports they get from gov't for those in the fossil fuels industry.  .....and car makers which use fossil fuels engines.  It was just 9 years ago that Ford and GM got massive bail-outs - to add to the many other hand-outs they've gotten over the past decades.   

 

       When Carter was prez, Congress approved multi-million dollar grants to the Big Three automakers - to develop better batteries.   When did we, the consumers, get those great new batteries which were promised?   Never.   The Big 3 just took the money, and top execs bought bigger yachts, and took trips to Bora Bora and St. Moritz.

 

 

Some  would  say  that  that  is  "  Balancing  the  equation ".

The  problem  is  that  the  majority  have  some  idea  of   what  the  unknown  equation   is  ! 

[JimmyJ]

17 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Not necessarily so.

 

CBS says that 15,000 scientists disagree. There's a big difference.

What exactly would you accept?

 

A signed statement from each of the 15,000?

 

But the handwriting could be forged. So a handwriting expert.

But what if he's been paid off? So 3 handwriting experts, and video of each of the signings?

 

The constant weaseling by climate science deniers is appalling. And ultimately timewasting.

[RickBradford]

3 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

What exactly would you accept?

 

A signed statement from each of the 15,000?

 

But the handwriting could be forged. So a handwriting expert.

But what if he's been paid off? So 3 handwriting experts, and video of each of the signings?

 

The constant weaseling by climate science deniers is appalling. And ultimately timewasting.

What is truly appalling is the mulish ignorance of people who are so devoid of arguments that they have to throw schoolyard insults like "denier" around.

 

I was pointing out that the media does not always, in fact does not often, present facts accurately, for a variety of reasons. Do you believe everything that appears on Fox News?

 

For a start, the CBS headline 15,000 scientists issue dire warning that "time is running out" on climate change is grossly misleading.

 

First, the mass of scientists didn't issue a warning; they merely "endorsed"  a report written by a handful of other people.

 

Second, the report wasn't even about climate change, for the most part. As you would know if you had bothered to get past CBS's headline,  the original 1992 report was concerned with ozone  depletion,  freshwater  availability,  marine  life  depletion,  ocean dead zones, forest loss, biodiversity  destruction,  climate  change,  and  continued  human  population  growth.

 

The new report updates those topics, saying they have gotten worse since 1992 (with the exception of ozone depletion). Given that range of problems, I would probably have endorsed the report had I been asked.

 

So CBS is being at best misleading on two counts, but you'll never know that if you simply believe everything you read in the newspapers.

[canuckamuck]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

That is a very flattering description of the Economist.

 

When the Economist uses the word "liberal", they mean liberal in the classic sense, meaning minimum government interference in business and individual affairs.  A conservative, in the classic sense, is someone who believes the government (and sometimes the church) should significantly guide/regulate/mandate business and individual behavior. 

 

It is difficult to agree on definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" as the words are used in modern US English, but they are not the same as the classic meanings.

That is a fine rebuttal of the first sentence of what I quoted. A shame you did not bother to read the rest.

Quote

"The Economist takes an editorial stance of classical and economic liberalism that supports free trade, globalisation, free immigration, and cultural liberalism (such as supporting legal recognition for same-sex marriage or drug liberalisation).^[2] The publication has described itself as "...a product of the Caledonian liberalism of Adam Smith and David Hume".^[15] It targets highly educated, cultured readers and claims an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers.^[16] The publication's CEO described this recent global change, which was first noticed in the 1990s and accelerated in the beginning of the 21st century, as a "new age of Mass Intelligence".^[17][18]"

 

The description reads as a flagship enterprise of the cultural Marxists and 50% owned by the Rothchilds no less. What a tangled web indeed.

 

[craigt3365]

25 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

What is truly appalling is the mulish ignorance of people who are so devoid of arguments that they have to throw schoolyard insults like "denier" around.

 

I was pointing out that the media does not always, in fact does not often, present facts accurately, for a variety of reasons. Do you believe everything that appears on Fox News?

 

For a start, the CBS headline 15,000 scientists issue dire warning that "time is running out" on climate change is grossly misleading.

 

First, the mass of scientists didn't issue a warning; they merely "endorsed"  a report written by a handful of other people.

 

Second, the report wasn't even about climate change, for the most part. As you would know if you had bothered to get past CBS's headline,  the original 1992 report was concerned with ozone  depletion,  freshwater  availability,  marine  life  depletion,  ocean dead zones, forest loss, biodiversity  destruction,  climate  change,  and  continued  human  population  growth.

 

The new report updates those topics, saying they have gotten worse since 1992 (with the exception of ozone depletion). Given that range of problems, I would probably have endorsed the report had I been asked.

 

So CBS is being at best misleading on two counts, but you'll never know that if you simply believe everything you read in the newspapers.

The media does not present facts accurately.  If you stick with the MSM sites.  Fox is the exception and should be avoided. LOL

 

The CBS headline is not grossly misleading.  It's spot on.  Sad you can't accept it for what it is.  Support by 15,000 scientists that we've got a problem.

 

You'll find the original letter below along with the list of those who signed.

 

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229

 

Please don't say MSM publishes fake news.  That's a violation of forum rules here.

[RickBradford]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The CBS headline is not grossly misleading.  It's spot on.  Sad you can't accept it for what it is.  Support by 15,000 scientists that we've got a problem.

If you can't see the wide difference between Support by 15,000 scientists that we've got a problem and 15,000 scientists issue dire warning that "time is running out" on climate change, then there really is nothing further to  discuss.

[craigt3365]

29 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

That is a fine rebuttal of the first sentence of what I quoted. A shame you did not bother to read the rest.

 

The description reads as a flagship enterprise of the cultural Marxists and 50% owned by the Rothchilds no less. What a tangled web indeed.

 

The Economist is one of the least biased media sites out there.  Sad you go after conspiracy theories.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/

LEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes).  The reporting is factual and usually sourced.  These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.

 

Factual Reporting: HIGH

 

Notes: The Economist is an English-language weekly news magazine owned by the Economist Group and edited in offices in London. The Economist presents news with centrist views and straightforward non-biased reporting.  They carefully label opinion pieces which earns them a least biased rating. (7/10/2016) Updated (7/4/2017)

[canuckamuck]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The Economist is one of the least biased media sites out there.  Sad you go after conspiracy theories.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/

LEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes).  The reporting is factual and usually sourced.  These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.

 

Factual Reporting: HIGH

 

Notes: The Economist is an English-language weekly news magazine owned by the Economist Group and edited in offices in London. The Economist presents news with centrist views and straightforward non-biased reporting.  They carefully label opinion pieces which earns them a least biased rating. (7/10/2016) Updated (7/4/2017)

Considering the topic is climate change, I will leave you in your blissful ignorance regarding the media and the massive conglomerates that own basically all of it. It's like comparing a Pontiac to a Chevy and thinking they are poles apart, when GM doesn't care which one you buy. They get you either way.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Considering the topic is climate change, I will leave you in your blissful ignorance regarding the media and the massive conglomerates that own basically all of it. It's like comparing a Pontiac to a Chevy and thinking they are poles apart, when GM doesn't care which one you buy. They get you either way.

Right.  We're all sheeple being led by the dealings of the Illuminati. LOL

[canuckamuck]

Well I'm not. But you can speak for yourself

Edited November 19, 2017 by canuckamuck

[boomerangutang]

It's somewhat like Trumpists, who are trying to stiffle incursions (on their rightousness) coming from many directions.  They resort to lying, changing their stories by the minute, obfuscation, name-calling, diversion, and a dozen other tricks, ....most of which only work with their die-hard base and no one else.

 

It's no coincidence that Trump is the anti-science poster boy for CC denier.

 

The fact remains that a vast majority (93%? 97?) of scientists (climate scientists and scientists in other fields) concur that CC is a serious issue, and is largely exacerbated by peoples' activities. The same folks agree with solid stats which show the earth (water, land, atmosphere) is warming. 

 

A second grader can understand that a warming planet will melt more ice (some/much of which won't be replaced in winter), and that ice will contribute to rising sea levels. A warming planet contributes to other dire issues which affect human populations.

 

It's not about climate history for the past billions or millions of years.  It's about recent decades, now, and the upcoming decades.   For deniers to keep dragging up climate changes from millions of years ago, is like a crime detective to say, "what's the big deal if there are increasing numbers of murders in our city - people have been killing each other for tens of thousands of years. Shit happens.  Get used to it."

[JimmyJ]

I'm constantly reminded of the Dawkins/Wright video when I visit this thread.

The 1st 4:00 of this video is why:

 

 

After 4:00 the video maker goes on to show his evidence of evolution using the whale.

But you get the picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2017 by JimmyJ

[canuckamuck]

8 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

It's somewhat like Trumpists, who are trying to stiffle incursions (on their rightousness) coming from many directions.  They resort to lying, changing their stories by the minute, obfuscation, name-calling, diversion, and a dozen other tricks, ....most of which only work with their die-hard base and no one else.

 

It's no coincidence that Trump is the anti-science poster boy for CC denier.

 

The fact remains that a vast majority (93%? 97?) of scientists (climate scientists and scientists in other fields) concur that CC is a serious issue, and is largely exacerbated by peoples' activities. The same folks agree with solid stats which show the earth (water, land, atmosphere) is warming. 

 

A second grader can understand that a warming planet will melt more ice (some/much of which won't be replaced in winter), and that ice will contribute to rising sea levels. A warming planet contributes to other dire issues which affect human populations.

 

It's not about climate history for the past billions or millions of years.  It's about recent decades, now, and the upcoming decades.   For deniers to keep dragging up climate changes from millions of years ago, is like a crime detective to say, "what's the big deal if there are increasing numbers of murders in our city - people have been killing each other for tens of thousands of years. Shit happens.  Get used to it."

Everybody knows it got warmer, why do you hang on to that as your primary evidence. It would be very troubling if the climate wasn't changing. The real question is whether or not it is a problem, and beyond that, is it possible to control it. Because really if you can't stop it, we really need to be thinking more about how adapt and take advantage of it.

The fear campaign is unwarranted and simply about power.

[lannarebirth]

23 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

The fact remains that a vast majority (93%? 97?) of scientists (climate scientists and scientists in other fields) concur that CC is a serious issue, and is largely exacerbated by peoples' activities. The same folks agree with solid stats which show the earth (water, land, atmosphere) is warming. 

 

 

With the String Theory academic funding firehose drying up, I'll bet you can get that consensus number up to 99%.

[JimmyJ]

21 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Everybody knows it got warmer, why do you hang on to that as your primary evidence. It would be very troubling if the climate wasn't changing. The real question is whether or not it is a problem, and beyond that, is it possible to control it. Because really if you can't stop it, we really need to be thinking more about how adapt and take advantage of it.

The fear campaign is unwarranted and simply about power.

 

"The fear campaign is unwarranted and simply about power."

 

What are your scientific credentials?

 

Same question for others in this thread who disagree with 97% of scientists on this issue.

[If you prefer, "...disagree with the vast majority of scientists..."]

Edited November 19, 2017 by JimmyJ

[canuckamuck]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

 

"The fear campaign is unwarranted and simply about power."

 

What are your scientific credentials?

Same question for others in this thread who disagree with 97% of scientists on this issue.

[If you prefer, "...disagree with the vast majority of scientists..."]

My preceding comments included a logical argument, what you quoted was my own opinion. Why don't you discuss the argument. Furthermore this is a discussion regular people have every day. If we are to ban everyone with a science degree from discussing it I suggest we close the thread immediately. 

[RickBradford]

Quote

Same question for others in this thread who disagree with 97% of scientists on this issue.

 

Well, I certainly don't disagree with the 97% of scientists, who were asked these 2 questions in the survey:

 

Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

 

Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 

 

For Q1, all you have to do is look at a thermometer, for Q2, you can cite all manner of things that humans do which can affect the climate, from aerosols, CFCs, greenhouse gases. The only uncertainty lies in that word "significant".

 

The mathematics was then simple. The authors of the survey then took their pool of scientists, numbering a mighty 79 in total, found that 76 of them had the answer "Yes" to Q1, a nearly similar number to Q2, and concluded that "97% of scientists believe in global warming."

 

That's the "science" of the activist Green/Left for you.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

The fear campaign is unwarranted and simply about power.

It's hardly a fear campaign.  And definitely not unwarranted or simply about power. 

 

And yes, we can reduce the impact we have on the environment.  Sadly, it takes a good government to do something about it.  The one the US has right now could care less.

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, JimmyJ said:

I'm constantly reminded of the Dawkins/Wright video when I visit this thread.

The 1st 4:00 of this video is why:

 

The American woman exemplifies the studious stupidity that pervades much of America.  Roughly 20% to 30% of Americans are fixated in realms of stupid and eyes clenched closed to reality.  It's no coincidence that they're also Trump fans. 

 

On a side note:  Churches are 100% exempt from taxes in the US.  They get massive donations from rich people.  Add that to the fact that they're getting very political, and it results in the US getting further fixed on the lunatic fringe of anti-science.   That's why Trump pretends to be religious.  He's about as religious as soi dog.

 

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Everybody knows it got warmer, why do you hang on to that as your primary evidence. It would be very troubling if the climate wasn't changing. The real question is whether or not it is a problem, and beyond that, is it possible to control it. Because really if you can't stop it, we really need to be thinking more about how adapt and take advantage of it.

The fear campaign is unwarranted and simply about power.

Canuckamuck asks; "is it (a warming planet) a problem?"   Answer:  YES!

 

Canuckamuck asks; "is it possible to control it?"   Answer; NO.  not anymore than it's possible to control a randy teenager.   But it is possible to do things that lessen its exacerbation.

 

Can we adapt?  Answer:  Some of us can.  Those with more money can obviously adapt easier than those with no resources.   That's why the millions of migrants we see today are usually poor and desperate to find better places to live.

 

Those with money can buy air-conditioners, can move to higher ground, if their city is flooding, can buy bottled water and food, even when prices go up.  Those with more money can rebuild if their house is destroyed by ever-larger storms, like those which hit Burma, Texas, Phil's in recent years.   They can move from desertified regions, like the Sahara, to nicer areas.    

 

Poor people, obviously, don't have the means to readily make their lives better.  When a typhoon hits southern Myanmar, hundreds of thousands of already-dirt-poor farmers are destitute.  Their government doesn't help them out.  Their daughters (if young and pretty) likely go into the sex biz.  Their sons do things like digging ditches for $3/day.

 

When a hurricane hits Texas, there are several 'safety nets' including FEMA, which help people put their lives back together.   Same for central CA wildfire victims.   Plus, most of those folks have relatives with money that can assist.  Destitute people in places like Sudan, Burma, Philippines, Algeria, Syria have a lot less support network, ....when the bottom falls out.

 

Those of us posting here on Thaivisa are looking at things from the well-off perspective.  We're in the minority ww.  The vast majority of people who will be affected by rising seas and desertification and stronger storms, are people with nearly no money.

 

 

[boomerangutang]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Everybody knows it got warmer......

No.  Many deniers are also denying it's getting warmer.   Don't assume your fellow deniers are all on the same page as you.

[Bill Miller]

I am unfollowing this particular thread because the rampant ignorance of the deniers makes me nuts.
One item in particular, the claim that melting ice does not cause a rise in sea level. As ice, water has a reduced density... why it floats. As it melts and becomes warmer its liquid volume increases. Look at how a thermometer works.
Enough. I will spend no more time on the willfully ignorant.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Bill Miller

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

I am unfollowing this particular thread because the rampant ignorance of the deniers makes me nuts.
One item in particular, the claim that melting ice does not cause a rise in sea level. As ice, water has a reduced density... why it floats. As it melts and becomes warmer its liquid volume increases. Look at how a thermometer works.
Enough. I will spend no more time on the willfully ignorant.

Understood.  But don't give up.  Try to educate the deniers.  It's not an easy task, but a worthy one.

[Bill Miller]

24 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Understood.  But don't give up.  Try to educate the deniers.  It's not an easy task, but a worthy one.

Thank you Craig. You are correct.
I am old and tired, but still certifiably bright if no longer brilliant () and owe a duty to my nieces and nephews, et alia, to try to leave them a survivable habitat.

[Bill Miller]

Hoping that not all deniers are ineducable, or petro industry billionaires who just don't give a wank, I will begin with the following in answer to one "pundit's" claim that the 97% figure is based on a survey of only a few scientists. id est ~80 out of 800.
 

Powell, 2013[edit]

"James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,^[4] analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.^[5][6][7][8] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming."

For bibliography see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change


I will settle for an educated person.

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

 

 

Canuckamuck asks; "is it (a warming planet) a problem?"   Answer:  YES!

 

Canuckamuck asks; "is it possible to control it?"   Answer; NO.  not anymore than it's possible to control a randy teenager.   But it is possible to do things that lessen its exacerbation.

 

Can we adapt?  Answer:  Some of us can.  Those with more money can obviously adapt easier than those with no resources.   That's why the millions of migrants we see today are usually poor and desperate to find better places to live.

 

Those with money can buy air-conditioners, can move to higher ground, if their city is flooding, can buy bottled water and food, even when prices go up.  Those with more money can rebuild if their house is destroyed by ever-larger storms, like those which hit Burma, Texas, Phil's in recent years.   They can move from desertified regions, like the Sahara, to nicer areas.    

 

Poor people, obviously, don't have the means to readily make their lives better.  When a typhoon hits southern Myanmar, hundreds of thousands of already-dirt-poor farmers are destitute.  Their government doesn't help them out.  Their daughters (if young and pretty) likely go into the sex biz.  Their sons do things like digging ditches for $3/day.

 

When a hurricane hits Texas, there are several 'safety nets' including FEMA, which help people put their lives back together.   Same for central CA wildfire victims.   Plus, most of those folks have relatives with money that can assist.  Destitute people in places like Sudan, Burma, Philippines, Algeria, Syria have a lot less support network, ....when the bottom falls out.

 

Those of us posting here on Thaivisa are looking at things from the well-off perspective.  We're in the minority ww.  The vast majority of people who will be affected by rising seas and desertification and stronger storms, are people with nearly no money.

 

 

-Why is a warming planet a problem? Historically warming trends have coincided with advances in civilization, prosperity. and a better quality of life

-Don't worry the rich people need the poor people to do all the work. If cities need to be built elsewhere, they will give them a place.

- I didn't make out the point of the hurricane bit.

-Those looking at the world from a well off perspective must also know that prosperity can be fleeting. The possibility of global financial collapse or another world war or both, is magnitudes more likely than apocolyptic climate change.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

That is a fine rebuttal of the first sentence of what I quoted. A shame you did not bother to read the rest.

 

The description reads as a flagship enterprise of the cultural Marxists and 50% owned by the Rothchilds no less. What a tangled web indeed.

 

You will have to provide your own definition of "cultural Marxism" for me to reply to this post.  I suspect it's a definition that no Marxist would agree with. 

 

The Economist is a staunch defender of property rights, and consider it an essential element of an efficient free market.  That's not very Marxist in my book.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Considering the topic is climate change, I will leave you in your blissful ignorance regarding the media and the massive conglomerates that own basically all of it. It's like comparing a Pontiac to a Chevy and thinking they are poles apart, when GM doesn't care which one you buy. They get you either way.

I think you are claiming that the Economist and all other major news organizations that accurately report on scientific reports about climate change are fake news. If so, I'm not sure what your rationale for this is.

[heybruce]

37 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

-Why is a warming planet a problem? Historically warming trends have coincided with advances in civilization, prosperity. and a better quality of life

-Don't worry the rich people need the poor people to do all the work. If cities need to be built elsewhere, they will give them a place.

- I didn't make out the point of the hurricane bit.

-Those looking at the world from a well off perspective must also know that prosperity can be fleeting. The possibility of global financial collapse or another world war or both, is magnitudes more likely than apocolyptic climate change.

Why worry about a climate warming faster than ecosystems can adapt and sea levels rising faster than coastal cities can adjust too? 

 

Really?  You need to ask?