Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

[ValuJet]

Gore is not a scientist that I'm aware of. He was trained at Vanderbilt as a journalist, to my knowledge. He's a politician who's made a veritable fortune selling propaganda as "science."

 

[ValuJet]

Prince Charles at today's Paris Summit:

The Prince of Wales urged them to 'think of your grandchildren, as I think of mine' as well as the billions of people without a voice and the youngest generation as they try to secure a new global deal.

He said: 'If the planet were a patient, we would have treated her long ago. You, ladies and gentlemen, have the power to put her on life support and you must surely start the emergency procedures without further procrastination.

'Humanity faces many threats but none is greater than climate change. In damaging our climate we are becoming the architects of our own destruction. We have the knowledge, the tools and the money (to solve the crisis).'

Chuck - last figure I heard was $90 trillion to "fix" everything. How much is Buckingham Palace going to pitch in?

Speaking personally I can't stand further taxation without moving my family into a van down by the river. I'll take my chances on the flying boulders.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

Everyone is a denier in this argument. Republicans who deny climate change on any level, and Democrats who deny the economic and standard-of-living depression that would result from doing everything necessary to dial back time (because they deny the expansion of nuclear energy, or absent doing everything necessary, deny the fact that we'll have no meaningful downward impact on global temperatures otherwise).

Not true. I believe in the expansion of nuclear energy (I would be ok with huge increases in nuclear energy), understand the potential economic impact, etc. In reality, thanks in part to the global recession, the U.S. can meet their targets. We are down in CO2 emissions from 2007 or 2008 (our peak in CO2 emissions, depending on your source). The real problem is China/India. Continued efficiency increases coupled with the gradual increase in renewable energy sources would be pretty realistic goals for the U.S. The doom and gloom cuts that you are worried about aren't really on the table. China, India, and the developing world are the ones that are really resisting any substantial cuts. In fact, the developed world (including US) are actually as a whole down from 1990 levels, mostly due to Europe, but still.

The only way for this to work is for this not to be a political issue. I have voted for democrats and republicans in my life. Government does not have to get huge for this to work.

 

[tidegrandpa]

Gore is not a scientist that I'm aware of. He was trained at Vanderbilt as a journalist, to my knowledge. He's a politician who's made a veritable fortune selling propaganda as "science."

It didn't hurt Gore's old man was Occidental Petroleum proxy in Washington. His old man left him a bunch of 'dirty oil' money. What a creep.

 

[ValuJet]

Not true. I believe in the expansion of nuclear energy (I would be ok with huge increases in nuclear energy), understand the potential economic impact, etc. In reality, thanks in part to the global recession, the U.S. can meet their targets. We are down in CO2 emissions from 2007 or 2008 (our peak in CO2 emissions, depending on your source). The real problem is China/India. Continued efficiency increases coupled with the gradual increase in renewable energy sources would be pretty realistic goals for the U.S. The doom and gloom cuts that you are worried about aren't really on the table. China, India, and the developing world are the ones that are really resisting any substantial cuts. In fact, the developed world (including US) are actually as a whole down from 1990 levels, mostly due to Europe, but still.

The only way for this to work is for this not to be a political issue. I have voted for democrats and republicans in my life. Government does not have to get huge for this to work.

That makes total sense. The Climate Change movement can do without the theatrics of characters like RFK Jr. who's called for "deniers" to be imprisoned and Bernie Sanders, and the hot button issue piggy backers like Hillary.

As a sort of tongue-in-cheek effort to display the futility of "the sky is falling" sentiment in the climate change industry, I call attention to mainland China (with pictures) on days when even the Chinese government acknowledges the air pollution is at dangerous levels. Comparatively speaking, our cities are clean whereas a couple of generations ago they weren't. Part of that is understandably that manufacturing has moved to China. The technology is there to build plants and capture heat for other uses rather than releasing into the air and rivers. The Chinese aren't willing to invest widespread in that technology to better their country. Until that changes there are going to be problems that we can't fix by taxation.

 

[Tide1986]

Not true. I believe in the expansion of nuclear energy (I would be ok with huge increases in nuclear energy), understand the potential economic impact, etc. In reality, thanks in part to the global recession, the U.S. can meet their targets. We are down in CO2 emissions from 2007 or 2008 (our peak in CO2 emissions, depending on your source). The real problem is China/India. Continued efficiency increases coupled with the gradual increase in renewable energy sources would be pretty realistic goals for the U.S. The doom and gloom cuts that you are worried about aren't really on the table. China, India, and the developing world are the ones that are really resisting any substantial cuts. In fact, the developed world (including US) are actually as a whole down from 1990 levels, mostly due to Europe, but still.

The only way for this to work is for this not to be a political issue. I have voted for democrats and republicans in my life. Government does not have to get huge for this to work.

From what I've read the common sense cuts are mainly a placebo and will not prevent us from piercing the 2 degree cap. Reference post #565 for example.

 

[Bamaro]

Gore is not a scientist that I'm aware of. He was trained at Vanderbilt as a journalist, to my knowledge. He's a politician who's made a veritable fortune selling propaganda as "science."

You dont have to be a scientist to be intelligent enough to realize that global warming is for real and a significant portion of it is most likely caused by human actions.
The global warming "debate" will wind up resolving itself just like the cigarette "debate" did during the 60s.

 

[ValuJet]

You dont have to be a scientist to be intelligent enough to realize that global warming is for real and a significant portion of it is most likely caused by human actions.
The global warming "debate" will wind up resolving itself just like the cigarette "debate" did during the 60s.

So you are saying there will be landmark lawsuits and settlements? Who will be the beneficiaries? And who will be punished? Are the oil companies being poised for breakups?

Now I understand why Bill Gates said socialism is the answer. There's a lot of goodwill in keeping the government off your back.

 

[tidegrandpa]

• 1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998

 

[Bamaro]

So you are saying there will be landmark lawsuits and settlements? Who will be the beneficiaries? And who will be punished? Are the oil companies being poised for breakups?

Now I understand why Bill Gates said socialism is the answer. There's a lot of goodwill in keeping the government off your back.

No, I never said that at all. Just making the comparison as it relates to corporate backing of deniers over science.

 

[Bamaro]

• 1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998

Maybe you should fast forward about 40 years.:tongue:

 

[tidegrandpa]

Maybe you should fast forward about 40 years.:tongue:

“The only thing new in the world is the history you do not know.”
― Harry S. Truman

 

[Bamaro]

“The only thing new in the world is the history you do not know.”
― Harry S. Truman

Science moves forward, not backwards

 

[ValuJet]

This one is rapidly climbing the ranks in my stash of pics:

 

[tidegrandpa]

Science moves forward, not backwards

Even when it's phony.

 

[ValuJet]

Even when it's phony.

And attached to grant money.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Science moves forward, not backwards

True, but dogma clings on for dear life.

 

[Tide1986]

Science moves forward, not backwards

I think his post had more to do with politics than it did science (i.e. the use of climate change to achieve social justice ends).

 

[NationalTitles18]

I'm about sick of the whole "climate change is terrorism" mantra already and then this:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[cuda.1973]

Kerry fesses up:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/09/why-bother-john-kerry-admits-american-co2-cuts-would-be-pointless/

… The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.

Still waiting for an explanation how carbon is a pollutant, but what do I know.

Without any carbon dioxide, they won't be able to grow all the ganja they must be smoking.