The narrative that the scientific consensus was "Global Cooling" is basically complete bullshit on top of that.
alright Merica you've made some valid points but Al Gore still made $100 billion off that stupid documentary.
I can grow the nastiest skank goatee you've ever seen. But that's about it. If I go three days without shaving I look like a fifteen year old lynyrd skynyrd fan.
Guys I can see there's a tornado about to touch down outside my place but I don't think I'm going do anything because the weatherman predicted it should have touched down an hour ago and condescendingly told everyone what they should be seeking shelter
who's going to come up with the cleverest straw man analogy? Brocktoon's was so bad I almost want him to delete and try again.
I'm just glad that you guys don't let something as silly as political affiliation dictate how you feel about something as obvious as climate change. That would be really dumb.
this is basically what TMB hs history teachers have been using as a cop out on the issue "if the messaging was just gentler, I might be open to listening...but you guys are mean!"
More like "if the messaging was accurate, we would listen more instead of questioning the credibility of people like Al Gore" I'm squarely on the wagon of climate change being an issue. But I also understand why people are still skeptical at this point. Not that it exists, but that it will actually cause major issues anytime soon. Most prognostications have proven to be either false or grossly exaggerated.
That's not true at all, but your hyperbole will get you the likes you're looking for from kids like bro.
There are two interviews I am talking about. One is with David Keith on the Colbert Report, and I thought he said we were already doing it, just in small instances, and then there is another from a lady who was in the Air Force that said we are doing it on a mass scale. Basically spraying sulfuric acid in the air so it would stop some of the warming caused by CO2. Personally, I don't put climate change as a priority. When it comes to advancing clean energy with govt intervention, I am OK with that. I actually think that it could be the industry that provides a million or more jobs if we actually got behind it. I do however think there was some cronyism going on with Solyndra and whatnot. To add a little more, I think people should be wary when the govt puts out a propaganda piece like Al Gore did. People talk about about how the right wing uses scare tactics to go to war, etc (which they do). I feel the left uses the same tactics with their agenda. That is not to say it is not there, but it could be vastly exaggerated so a very few people can make a lot of money.
No matter how many times you explain this, all you hear back is, "yeah but so what? Everything's changed now and you need to listen to us this time." Yeah...we hear you. We understand that it's an issue. We don't think it's dire. We're recycling. What else would you like us to do besides run around and scream at clouds?
To me, climate change is an irrelevant symptom...I don't really understand why semantics have to get in the way of the fact that our current stewardship of the earth is completely untenable
Elect politicians who will create policies to push innovation and limit greenhouse gas emissions? Dude, no one gives a shit what you do personally. It doesn't matter at all. The only thing that matters is that you push your elected leaders instead of letting them dictate what a good conservative should believe.
NASA is researching co2 conversion machines for a manned mission to Mars. If that technology becomes affordable it could be used on earth at an industrial scale. The possibilities that an unlimited supply of energy opens up are insane. And there's a giant nuclear reactor right above our heads.
Straw man assumes that I am attempting to argue, debate or discredit your position. I was simply mocking you.
...and doing a poor job, all while failing to understand that your attempt at mockery is also an effort to discredit. Nice try, though. HTH
That would be awesome. But I feel it would take a complete paradigm shift for us to get that kind of technology on a mass scale. I believe Tesla was on to something and they stole his ideas and shut it down for consumer use. I think we have much more technology than 99% of this country will ever know. Take a car for example - I think there is too much money in going from a 1973 gasoline clunker to flying cars that use a much different kind of technology that is free. They just modify things for 50 years and make enormous profits over that time - from the 20 mpg clunker to a 22 mpg with air conditioner and power steering to a 25 mpg car with bucket seats, ac, and can go 15 mph faster to eventually where we are now with gas cars that can go 50 mpg/electric cars. They will milk electric and hybrid for the next 20 years and then self guiding/steering cars and so on and so on when I personally feel they could have flying cars (obviously not provable). I think we could have a near utopia if all the technology was released. But I also think some of that technology could cause great destruction, and people are not ready for it.
If a company has revolutionary technology, it will use it to get ahead of the competition. Especially if it is a large company with a small market share like Apple was before the Ipod. I think the conspiracy lies more in companies trying to get involved in politics in order to keep the status quo, instead of allowing legislation that might push them to innovate.
Shu are you familiar with nuclear weapons...we literally have technology that can end the world already
I agree that the small market share company would be more prone to release tech that would be revolutionary, but I think the big companies buy up patents and hoard them.
Yeah, but that is only in a few govts hands. I am talking something that becomes so common that ordinary people had it. Something that could generate an enormous amount of energy very quickly and cheaply. People would probably figure out a way to use it for nefarious purposes.
Maybe already answered but don't wanna have to look for this again later. Scientist's have always said climate change...the media/talking heads coined global warming
I somehow missed all of the claims that people reference when they say "they said that miami would be underwater by now/they said <insert city> would experience <insert extreme climate event> but it hasn't happened therefore there is no validity to the science." I work in the energy industry and follow news that affects my clients in the oil and gas and utility industries (technology, regulations, scientific findings on fracking/climate that shape regs) and I never see any radical predictions like that. I see stuff about global sea levels rising by x amount by the end of the century or "if we are still emitting GHGs at this level in 2025, we will experience irreversible harm to the planet" but I've never seen anything that said a coastal city was going to be underwater in the next 5 years. I'd be interested to see the sources for some of that stuff. Just like the right, there are nut job radicals on the left who occupy wall street and make radical climate claims without knowing anything about their cause.
ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge ExxonMobil gave more than $2.3m to members of Congress and a corporate lobbying group that deny climate change and block efforts to fight climate change – eight years after pledging to stop its funding of climate denial, the Guardian has learned. Climate denial – from Republicans in Congress and lobby groups operating at the state level – is seen as a major obstacle to US and global efforts to fight climate change, closing off the possibility of federal and state regulations cutting greenhouse gas emissions and the ability to plan for a future of sea-level rise and extreme weather. Exxon channeled about $30m to researchers and activist groups promoting disinformation about global warming over the years, according to a tally kept by the campaign group Greenpeace. But the oil company pledged to stop such funding in 2007, in response to pressure from shareholder activists. “In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner,” Exxon said in its 2007 Corporate Citizenship report. But since 2007, the oil company has given $1.87m to Republicans in Congress who deny climate change and an additional $454,000 to the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), according to financial and tax records. In a statement to the Guardian this week, Exxon spokesman Richard Keil reiterated: “ExxonMobil does not fund climate denial.” http://www.theguardian.com/environm...mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers
Exxon channeled about $30m to researchers and activist groups promoting disinformation about global warming over the years
Need to emit more CO2 to counteract this ASAP. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/13/world/sun-irregular-heartbeat-ice/ (CNN)Scientists have made a discovery about the sun's "heartbeat" that they say indicates that Earth's Northern Hemisphere could experience a deep freeze in 15 years. The sun has a "solar heartbeat," or cycle of activity, that produces energy that causes sunspots and solar flares. Scientists at Northumbria University in northeast England developed a model that illustrates the history of these heartbeats and that predicts there will be irregularities in them. The model suggests that solar activity will fall by 60% during the 2030s. According to the Royal Astronomical Society, the researchers studied the sun's magnetic field activity between 1976 and 2008. They compared their predictions with average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity, the society reported. The researchers' model showed a 97% level of accuracy, said Valentina Zharkova, a Northumbria University mathematics professor. So how cold could it get? The scientists say their findings could mean a deep freeze like the one Great Britain experienced around 1900, when the Thames River froze over. CNN meteorologist Brandon Miller says the study looks intriguing, but it has not been peer reviewed, or subjected to the scrutiny of the larger scientific community. "This isn't published research yet," he said. "Our ability to forecast the specifics of a solar cycle is incredibly poor. It's worse than forecasting in a hurricane season." Doug Biesecker, who works at the Space Weather Prediction Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado, agrees with Miller. He said the research shouldn't give anyone the idea that because the weather may cool, climate change is not something to be worried about. "It's a very complicated issue," Biesecker, an expert in solar physics, told CNN. "Does the sun have a role in our variable climate? Yes. Is the dominant role? No. Even the concept of the sun being responsible for Europe's mini ice age -- it's not hard-and-fast true." Bottom line: The research needs a closer look.
The fact that Lindsey Graham said this is AWESOME. Also enjoyed him referring to his immigration plan as Lindsey Grahamnesty
A question for any climate change deniers. If this is all one big hoax being brought to you by big government, why is so much of this scientific research coming from universities around the world? Are there really so many universities and scientists around the world that are in on the US government's plan to go green?
I don't think it's a hoax, as in a Shu level conspiracy type of way. It's a necessity to secure government funding. The gravy train is rolling, so why throw a log on the tracks? Is the climate changing? Of course it is, I don't deny that. It's been in a state of change since before humans existed and it'll continue long after we're gone. How much of that change is due to natural processes vs human action is the real question and I don't think our knowledge base has satisfactorily answered that question. To believe all of these "sky is falling" scenarios is asking me to disbelieve my own experiences. Clean up the planet for the sake of cleaning it up, not under the guise of something that may or may not be of our own doing. FWIW, I think we generally treat the Earth pretty shitty and there's a lot that needs to be done to clean it up. The planet is reaching it's carrying capacity and could probably do with a few billion less people messing it up.