Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

Or sterilization. Don't forget sterilization.

I'm good with either.

alrightee! You acknowledge the problem... you believe the problem can be solved. Your previous solution was to have countries shift away from fossil-fuels to nuclear. Notwithstanding you've never qualified the type of nuclear you're advocating for, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you're a genuine forward thinker and that you're in good company! ... so-called "next gen" nuclear (i.e. "safe nuclear") - the silver bullet panacea!!! In other MLW threads, several times now, I've mentioned Hansen's relatively long-standing position advocating 4th gen nuclear... that world nations should plow monies into 4th gen R&D. Hey I'm on-board, I've said so. However, that doesn't presume on a quick fix remedy/solution being found, if ever... and accepted/deployed; that doesn't presume on an interim do nothing approach to reduce reliance on fossil-fuels through existing alternative energy approaches (approaches that, in themselves, will also continue to refine, to develop).

in the interim... waiting for your presumed (fantasized?) shifts to nuclear, existing or future gen, it's quite telling that you'd advocate for massive world-wide forced sterilization over anything that might mess with fossil-fuel use/reliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your latest recent foray into warming simply being a result of a recovery from the Little Ice Age says it all... says you've got no worrieswe've got no worries or worthwhile remedies - why are you even bothering to engage? :lol:

Fixed. Edited by jbg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixed.

somehow... when you first dropped that fringe-of-the-fringe denier turd a few pages back, you managed to ignore my question/challenge to you... asking you to qualify the physical basis'/mechanism behind the warming you simply claim as "Little Ice Age (LIA) recovery warming"! Challenging you to provide your LIA recovery warming attribution, the physical based attribution/mechanism behind today's relatively recent warming. Is there a reason you ignored the request put to you? Is there a problem? :lol:

`Even skeptic scientists agree the earth is warming. The debate is about the cause of it.

We've been coming out of an Ice Age for a while. Not much we can do about it.

nice! Although it fits with your past MLW posting history/position, that's fringe of the fringe denier stuff you're peddling there... that the earth's warming is simply a result of "recovering from the LIA". Of course, any climate change must have a physical basis'/mechanism(s) behind it... causing it. What causal physical basis/mechanism are you associating warming with your claimed "coming out of the LIA"... what are you attributing the past 100 years, 50 years warming to?

so I guess you're not one of the OP's described believing Americans, hey!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alrightee! You acknowledge the problem... you believe the problem can be solved. Your previous solution was to have countries shift away from fossil-fuels to nuclear. Notwithstanding you've never qualified the type of nuclear you're advocating for, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you're a genuine forward thinker and that you're in good company! ... so-called "next gen" nuclear (i.e. "safe nuclear") - the silver bullet panacea!!! In other MLW threads, several times now, I've mentioned Hansen's relatively long-standing position advocating 4th gen nuclear... that world nations should plow monies into 4th gen R&D. Hey I'm on-board, I've said so. However, that doesn't presume on a quick fix remedy/solution being found, if ever... and accepted/deployed; that doesn't presume on an interim do nothing approach to reduce reliance on fossil-fuels through existing alternative energy approaches (approaches that, in themselves, will also continue to refine, to develop).

in the interim... waiting for your presumed (fantasized?) shifts to nuclear, existing or future gen, it's quite telling that you'd advocate for massive world-wide forced sterilization over anything that might mess with fossil-fuel use/reliance.

Well, this gets us back to the can't/won't thing we discussed in earlier posts. The chances of forced, mass sterilization are probably about the same as a worldwide replacement of fossil fuels with any generation of nuclear power. We could, but we won't. It's what puts me at number 4 on your list. The fact that you are on board isn't going to make any difference to that.

The fact is, and I truly believe it to be a fact, is that there will never be the kind of international cooperation required to reduce fossil fuel use, across the planet, that will make any noticeable difference to the progression of climate change. The gradual effect of industrial activity and population growth since the industrial revolution would take far more than we are willing to do to stop and reverse.

Then come the "weasel words", of course:

Notwithstanding AGW, every person/industry/country should take whatever steps they can to reduce pollution, just because it's the right thing to do. I don't see how having the one position means I can't hold the other. Shutting down Alberta's oil and gas industry would not be one of those steps. It wouldn't help AGW and it would put a lot of people out of work. Tightening regulations on hydrocarbon emissions would have the same effect on AGW (none) but it would help people downwind breathe a little easier and is doable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is absolutely nothing dishonest about my groupings. I suspect the main issue for you is my descriptions of the groups which were not flattering. OTOH - I did place myself in one of the less that flattering groups which sort destroys your thesis that the groupings were completely self serving.

You totally omitted important groups...which you later defended because they were "subgroupings"...which is false.

These grouping represent my honest assessment of how people form their opinions on climate change. You disagree but disagreeing requires more than baseless accusations of dishonesty.

First of all, I posited dishonesty as one of two possible motivations, and said that on reflection, I genuinely don't know which one is true.

Second, it wasn't "baseless"...I explained exactly what was wrong with your list--omission being the single error, since I agree that all those groupings actually exist.

KIS suggestion that you develop your own list of 4-6 groups and explain why they are materially different from mine would be a better way to express your disagreement.

Done already. Like I said, I agree that the groups you mention all exist...and pointed out a crucial one which you've missed. If there are other missing ones which I haven't considered, perhaps someone else might point it out.

Either way, my "developing my own list" is so obviously implied from my responses that I can only assume--again--that you have no wish for a serious discussion on the matter.

The point that you seem to be missing is polls like the one in this op are absolutely useless measures of public thinking because it is very easy to produce the desired results by framing the questions. I explained how the question you provided from the poll was hopelessly biased in a prior post (which you have appear to have ignored).

And I've already explained, more than once, why I disagree with your assessment. Disagreement, when explained, is not a matter of ignoring your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how TimG's position over time has morphed from Global Warming is not real to Global Warming is real but not a problem to Global Warming is a real problem that's too expensive to address. Little by little, he'll eventually realize that a fire is making shadows on the cave wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You totally omitted important groups...which you later defended because they were "subgroupings"...which is false.

I did not omit anything. All of the categories brought up are subgroups. In normal discussions I would expect people to simply accept the clarifications and move on - but here - I get rants about "dishonesty".

And I've already explained, more than once, why I disagree with your assessment. Disagreement, when explained, is not a matter of ignoring your post.

You actually brought up a question from the poll and claimed it was unbiased. I responded showing you explicitly why that question was biased and provided another question that would have gotten the opposite result if it was posed. You have ignored it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how TimG's position over time has morphed from Global Warming is not real to Global Warming is real but not a problem to Global Warming is a real problem that's too expensive to address. Little by little, he'll eventually realize that a fire is making shadows on the cave wall.

My position has not changed. The only thing that has changed is people are actually reading what I am saying instead of reading two words skipping the rest and inserting their own prejudices as my opinions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You actually brought up a question from the poll and claimed it was unbiased.

I did no such thing. I stated that, as with poll questions generally, I would not blandly accept what I'd perceive as unspoken premises--radically implying that I don't think myself more thoughtful or insightful than the majority of American conservatives. (It's you who thinks them unable to form coherent thought, not me.) Roughly the opposite of your assertion, in other words.

What was it you subsequently said about "reading two words skipping the rest and inserting their own prejudices as my opinions"?

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did no such thing.

This is what you said:

Because the question about whether the government should intervene to limit industry emissions was put exactly in that manner:

As you may have heard, greenhouse gases are thought to cause global warming. In your opinion, do you think the government should or should not limit the amount of greenhouse gases that U.S. businesses put out?

So that sort of crushes your "push poll" thesis.
I don't think any reasonable reader would conclude that you did not bring a question from the poll and claim it was unbaised.

What was it you subsequently said about "reading two words skipping the rest and inserting their own prejudices as my opinions"?

It appears I am reading your posts more carefully than you are. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what you said:

I don't think any reasonable reader would conclude that you did not bring a question from the poll and claim it was unbaised.

It appears I am reading your posts more carefully than you are.

Well, how interesting that you've omitted my prefatory remarks that puts this into plain perspective; here is what immediately precedes the bit you quoted....which you must have seen...which begs the question again about the seriousness of your intentions in this discussion:

As for "push polls"....if a question was put to me that was prefaced this way: "As you may have heard, it is thought that aliens have visited Earth," I would not stand there slack-jawed, say "Really? 'It is thought' so? OK, then let's assume the validity of the premise."

That is, the statement is uncontroversially true...but that doesn't mean I would buy into the premise behind it....unless I already agreed with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, how interesting that you've omitted my prefatory remarks that puts this into plain perspective; here is what immediately precedes the bit you quoted....which you must have seen...which begs the question again about the seriousness of your intentions in this discussion:

You tried to make a point by using an absurd example and claim that the response to an absurd example would be representative of a response to a realistic example. I ignored that argument because it was nonsensical.

You then made the statement:

"Because the question about whether the government should intervene to limit industry emissions was put exactly in that manner:"

Which implies that the question that follows was from the poll. I responded to that because I was an argument worth responding to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You tried to make a point by using an absurd example and claim that the response to an absurd example would be representative of a response to a realistic example. I ignored that argument because it was nonsensical.

But it was an analogy; so by definition the same principle applies to the real-life example.

Further, this is perfectly clear. Read it again and you'll see. There's no way to misread it...that is, there's no way I could be saying or implying anything other than what is there in plain English.

You then made the statement:

"Because the question about whether the government should intervene to limit industry emissions was put exactly in that manner:"

Which implies that the question that follows was from the poll. I responded to that because I was an argument worth responding to.

I wasn't implying it; I was stating it outright. That was the question under discussion here.

The point is that I made my "premises" argument without equivocation. I don't know why you pretend I did not.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the point is that I made my "premises" argument without equivocation. I don't know why you pretend I did not.

Sorry - you "premises" argument does not address my response where I provided a question which would produce an opposite response to the same idea.

And this is not just my theory. People on both sides of the fence know they can influence people by either avoiding causing personal harm or by emphasizing the personal harm caused by the other guy.

That is why climate campaigners rarely call for carbon taxes because that would cause pain for a large number of voters. They always create Rube Goldberg schemes which target 'industry' because people will not be able to connect the higher prices to the anti-CO2 schemes.

People who oppose climate policy always work to remind people that no matter what the other guys claim their policies will hit them in the pocket book. In some cases, they will create deliberately opaque policies in order to hide the fact that they intend to do nothing (the latter is less necessary since climate policy has become discredited).

Give those real facts I don't see how you can claim that a poll could not generate different responses depending on how the question is phrased.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand why so many people are against climate change.

It seems to be of net benefit overall, especially to countries like Canada and Russia (2 largest countries in the world).

Net benefit???

Severe tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, mudslides..can all be attributed to humans pumping GHGs into our fragile atmosphere. Some of the stuff I read on here makes me wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Severe tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, mudslides..can all be attributed to humans pumping GHGs into our fragile atmosphere/

Actually - no they can't. There is absolutely no evidence that the modest warming we have seen to date has had any effect on major weather events. However, many more humans moving into danger zones has had a huge effect on the cost of cleaning up after these major weather events. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually - no they can't. There is absolutely no evidence that the modest warming we have seen to date has had any effect on major weather events. However, many more humans moving into danger zones has had a huge effect on the cost of cleaning up after these major weather events.

You are DEAD wrong. Human caused GHGs ARE causing these disasters., I've had it with deniers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are DEAD wrong. Human caused GHGs ARE causing these disasters., I've had it with deniers.

Sorry - the data does not support your claims. Here is a recent chart showing that typhoon disasters are NOT getting more common: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/11/are-typhoon-disasters-getting-more.html. Similar data exists for other types of major weather events.

I realize that your climate religion requires that you believe things which are not true and you are entitled to believe in whatever religious myths you want to cook up but please stop insisting that it is anything other than your personal religious conviction.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry - the data does not support your claims. Here is a recent chart showing that typhoon disasters are NOT getting more common: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/11/are-typhoon-disasters-getting-more.html. Similar data exists for other types of major weather events.

I realize that your climate religion requires that you believe things which are not true and you are entitled to believe in whatever religious myths you want to cook up but please stop insisting that it is anything other than your personal religious conviction.

No point on arguing with you, as Waldo has made a fool out of you many times in this thread alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No point on arguing with you, as Waldo has made a fool out of you many times in this thread alone.

ROTFL - waldo is great at serving up red meat for the true believers like you. For people who actually have any cognitive ability his arguments are silly because all he can do is show that there are different ways of looking at the same data which proves the skeptical position that we really know next to nothing about climate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is, and I truly believe it to be a fact, is that there will never be the kind of international cooperation required to reduce fossil fuel use, across the planet, that will make any noticeable difference to the progression of climate change. The gradual effect of industrial activity and population growth since the industrial revolution would take far more than we are willing to do to stop and reverse.

Oh, I disagree witth "never" but. right now we are a world addicted to fossil fuels and the consequences of that addiction aren't being felt enough to provide enough motivation to change. Addicts rarely change until they hit rock bottom but when the crap starts hitting the fan big time, simultaniously in multiple locations, there will be some major attitude adjustments. The only question is how bad it will have to get before that happens and whether we will still be capable of doing anything about it..

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I disagree witth "never" but. right now we are a world addicted to fossil fuels and the consequences of that addiction aren't being felt enough to provide enough motivation to change.

I reject your suggestion that fossil fuel use is an 'addiction' because using your logic human beings are also addicted food, air or water and the only proper response it to commit suicide to end the addiction.

Energy is the "food" for modern society which has brought more wealth and health to more people than ever before. Fossil fuels and nuclear are the only source that can deliver the necessary energy and that is not going to change any time soon. So it really makes no difference what hypothetical problems are created by CO2 we simply cannot avoid emitting CO2 anymore than we can avoid breathing.

I also expect that adaptation will happen and in 100 years the climate will be different but no one will have really noticed because humans quietly adapted to the new regime.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Popular Now

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...