The Governator on climate change

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Norm is absolutely right. Climate change is not disputed, the primary cause of it is. Many people have bought into the big lie that climate scientists agree that man is the primary cause of global warming today. NO SUCH POLL EXISTS!

I expect someone will provide a web link from the consensus project or some other propaganda source. These bunk websites ...[text shortened]... y of climate scientists agree on is that man has an influence on global warming and that is all.

"NO SUCH POLL EXISTS!"
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

would a list of those that do consider humans to be the primary cause for climate change published on nasa's website be sufficient? or must i also copy and paste the second link of the google search for "climate change scientific consensus"

"I expect someone will provide a web link from the consensus project or some other propaganda source. These bunk websites all have one thing in common, they never provide their source of information. Why? Simple.....IT DOES NOT EXIST!"
so those that do say that humans are the cause are what? leprechauns? finding their work, reading it counts as hallucinations?


"All that the majority of climate scientists agree on is that man has an influence on global warming and that is all."
i notice a certain lack of evidence on this affirmation

Originally posted by normbenign
[b]funny you should mention that. most republicans who use that line are also the ones engaging in spreading panic over muslims, christmas under attack, capitalism under attack, american dream under attack, obamacare is evil, hillary clinton is evil, obama is muslim and kenyan and evil.
are you such a republican?

I'm not panicking about anything. ...[text shortened]... trols. They are no reason to panic, but do have rational solutions, besides just raising taxes.[/b]

"Climate change is something that man hasn't caused, and that he has little or no control over."
in your expert opinion as a climatologist and supported by countless peer reviewed scientific studies

"How much man is contributing to these changes is debatable."
sure it is. we can debate when these changes will become irreversible because of our actions.


"Most of the global warming, cooling, climate change are about politics, and methods of extracting more taxes from people, instead of just adapting to temperature changes. "
as opposed to fossil fuel industries who do not receive any subsidies.

"They are no reason to panic, but do have rational solutions, besides just raising taxes"
i agree, thinking that climate change can only be dealt with more taxes is idiotic. thinking that climate change is all about raising taxes is also idiotic.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
http://samuel-warde.com/2015/12/arnold-schwarzenegger-stumps-climate-change-deniers-with-one-pro-life-question/

"I, personally, want a plan. I don’t want to be like the last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads. I don’t want to be the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged. That’s exactly what is going to happ ...[text shortened]... s you otherwise is either wrong, or lying. Either way, I wouldn’t take their investment advice."

You want a plan?

Tax people to death so they can't afford to heat and cool their homes, then you make it so they can't afford a car or to travel by plane.

Next you kill the economy. When there is no economy there is decreased carbon emissions. There is no way to reduce carbon emissions with a booming economy, plus they won't be able to afford increased energy expenditures, which is key to your plan. Just continue the current economic policies while ignoring the mountains of debt that will destroy future generations.

Then the kicker is, you stop them from reproducing. In short, you need to kill off the carbon critters. Champion abortion, contraception, euthanasia, or protect those who murder. To protect those who murder, oppose the death penalty so they can kill again, champion Islam which can claim the most violent terrorist organizations in the world, and withdraw morality from society in public schools so they will go out and do drugs and get STD's that will kill them.

Or you could just vote Dim and let them take care of it. 😵

I almost forgot, it's key to introduce a plan which, according to scientific calculations will do next to nothing in reducing the effects of carbon emissions and with no real identifiable goals that prove you know what the hell you are talking about, and just continue to nag people into submitting more of their time and money down the climate hole.

That way it will be never ending! Whatever measure they take to curb carbon emissions, it will never be enough with the GOP to blame no doubt.

Originally posted by whodey
You want a plan?

Tax people to death so they can't afford to heat and cool their homes, then you make it so they can't afford a car or to travel by plane.

Next you kill the economy. When there is no economy there is decreased carbon emissions. There is no way to reduce carbon emissions with a booming economy, plus they won't be able to afford increase ...[text shortened]... d get STD's that will kill them.

Or you could just vote Dim and let them take care of it. 😵

reasonable. it seems you have thought hard on this subject and produced a coherent and intelligent response.

it seems some have missed the point of this thread.

i didn't want a debate on whether climate change is real or not, or on whether we are the primary cause. it is and we are and only morons can deny it now but that's beside the point.

the point of this thread was to show that even dismissing climate change, moving away from fossil fuels as soon as possible is the economically sound choice. even dismissing climate change, pollution still kills people and reducing it is going to save money. (if saving lives is not sexy enough for you)

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Have you considered submitting these findings to a peer reviewed journal?

Try reading "A Disgrace to the Profession" which features critiques of most of the leading climatologists in the world, of Dr. Michael Mann's hockey stick.

Many of these favor the notion of anthropomorphic warming and cooling, and many do not. All universally hate Mann's phony science.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Climate change is something that man hasn't caused, and that he has little or no control over."
in your expert opinion as a climatologist and supported by countless peer reviewed scientific studies

"How much man is contributing to these changes is debatable."
sure it is. we can debate when these changes will become irreversible because of our actions. ...[text shortened]... more taxes is idiotic. thinking that climate change is all about raising taxes is also idiotic.

I guess there must be no problem with fuel in Romania.

Climate change and its anthropomorphic (that's man made to you) components are a matter of debate, not of some consensus of Scientists. Do the reading, instead of just swallowing whole panic statements by politicians, not scientists.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it seems some have missed the point of this thread.

i didn't want a debate on whether climate change is real or not, or on whether we are the primary cause. it is and we are and only morons can deny it now but that's beside the point.

the point of this thread was to show that even dismissing climate change, moving away from fossil fuels as soon as p ...[text shortened]... ills people and reducing it is going to save money. (if saving lives is not sexy enough for you)

For the time being, finding a replacement for fossil fuels is on a wish list for the future. Probably the only energy source as large and dependable as fossil fuels is nuclear, and it has its own list of problems.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it seems some have missed the point of this thread.

i didn't want a debate on whether climate change is real or not, or on whether we are the primary cause. it is and we are and only morons can deny it now but that's beside the point.

the point of this thread was to show that even dismissing climate change, moving away from fossil fuels as soon as p ...[text shortened]... ills people and reducing it is going to save money. (if saving lives is not sexy enough for you)

I don't believe the proponents of climate legislation really believe their own rhetoric, and this is why.

1. Many oppose nuclear power, one of the few, if only, viable forms of energy needed that is carbon free.
2. They live jet set lives. They fly constantly around the world while it is known that one such flight is equivalent to driving an SUV for an entire year in terms of carbon emissions. Why not meet by other means that would not require a face to face visit?
3. Their own solutions, according to their own estimates, will do very little to curb climate change. Why is that?
4. They seemed focused on destroying capitalism. Their rhetoric and actions are focused more on destroying capitalism than it is finding viable solutions to the problem. Is using less fossil fuels really a solution to anything? It's like telling someone that needs water to survive just to drink less.
5. Anyone who dares question anything they say in any way is destroyed by the PC police. Where there is no freedom of speech their is fascism.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't believe the proponents of climate legislation really believe their own rhetoric, and this is why.

1. Many oppose nuclear power, one of the few, if only, viable forms of energy needed that is carbon free.
2. They live jet set lives. They fly constantly around the world while it is known that one such flight is equivalent to driving an SUV for an ...[text shortened]... in any way is destroyed by the PC police. Where there is no freedom of speech their is fascism.

"1. Many oppose nuclear power, one of the few, if only, viable forms of energy needed that is carbon free."
too much of it and you are left with tons of nuclear waste and no good ways to store them yet.

"2. They live jet set lives. They fly constantly around the world while it is known that one such flight is equivalent to driving an SUV for an entire year in terms of carbon emissions. Why not meet by other means that would not require a face to face visit?"
yes, they should travel by foot. like jesus. that will help with getting the message across.

"3. Their own solutions, according to their own estimates, will do very little to curb climate change. Why is that?"
because they are in the process of convincing ignorants that there is such a thing as climate change and to get them to spend time and resources on fighting better solutions.

"4. They seemed focused on destroying capitalism. "
they are focused on destroying unregulated, unsustainable capitalism
"Their rhetoric and actions are focused more on destroying capitalism than it is finding viable solutions to the problem. "
"destroying" unregulated capitalism (by regulating it and turning it into proper capitalism) is a solution to the problem.

"Is using less fossil fuels really a solution to anything?"
no. it won't help with improving your knitting. but it is a solution to many things.

" It's like telling someone that needs water to survive just to drink less."
no. it's like telling someone that needs water badly to stop using it to wash his suv, then water his lawn, then drink what's left

"Anyone who dares question anything they say in any way is destroyed by the PC police. "
you like using the word "destroy". i see here you use it with the meaning of "pointing out when someone's arguments were already dismantled by proper, peer reviewed science".

"Where there is no freedom of speech their is fascism"
i see you use "no freedom of speech" with the meaning of "i actually was free to present my opinion but i was ridiculed for it being stupid". other people use it a little differently

Originally posted by normbenign
For the time being, finding a replacement for fossil fuels is on a wish list for the future. Probably the only energy source as large and dependable as fossil fuels is nuclear, and it has its own list of problems.

"For the time being, finding a replacement for fossil fuels is on a wish list for the future."
if by "on a wish list for the future" you mean "not willing to give up the least amount of comfort for a short time just to have a sustainable future" yes, i agree.

solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy, geothermal energy. every place on earth can have access to one or more of these. they are already efficient enough to make a difference. one just needs to want to devote time and resources to make them even more so.

you have the exact attitude towards these sources of energy that 19th century old people had towards the automobile. "why should i use a car and go at 16km/h when i can use a horse and go twice as fast" "why should i devote time and energy to make a better car, that's on a wish list for the future"

"why should i build a better, faster, smaller computer? nobody would ever want a computer in their home"
“We will never make a 32 bit operating system.” — Bill Gates
"A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” — New York Times, 1936.
“There will never be a bigger plane built.” — A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people

there are countless of quotes like this, including one by chaplin about how tv is a fad that will go away, that the telegraph is stupid and it will never catch on in england because they have enough messenger boys and so on.

we remember them because they are hilarious in how oblivious they were.

nobody will remember you for being this oblivious but probably there are some famous people with your exact thoughts, people will remember them

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"NO SUCH POLL EXISTS!"
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

would a list of those that do consider humans to be the primary cause for climate change published on nasa's website be sufficient? or must i also copy and paste the second link of the google search for "climate change scientific consensus"

"I expect someone will provide a web link ...[text shortened]... nce on global warming and that is all."
i notice a certain lack of evidence on this affirmation

Your link says this:

"Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Does it say "primary cause"? No, it does not.

Does it imply "primary cause". You might think so at first, but what it really implies is that anthropogenic causes are 100% which is IMPOSSIBLE!

Conclusion: The link is misleading at best and a lie at worst.

Give me another link if you would like, but I suggest you read it with skepticism first before believing it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Have you considered submitting these findings to a peer reviewed journal?

Consensus can be manufactured -- even where no consensus exists. For example, it has become very popular to claim that 97% of all publications support AGW. Here the key question to ask is: Which publications and what exactly is the form of support?

Thanks to the revelations of the Climategate e-mails, we now have a more skeptical view about the process which is used to vet publications. We know now that peer-review, once considered by many as the 'gold-standard,' can be manipulated -- and in fact has been manipulated by a gang of UK and US climate scientists who have been very open about their aim to keep dissenting views from being published. We also know from the same e-mails that editors can be bullied by determined activists.

In any case, the peer-review process can easily be slanted by the editor, who usually selects the reviewers. And some editors misuse their position to advance their personal biases.

For example, the case of a former editor of Science who was quite open about his belief in DAGW, and actively discouraged publication of any papers that went against his bias. Finally, he had to be shamed into giving voice to a climate skeptic's contrary opinion, based on solid scientific evidence. But of course, he reserved to himself the last word in the debate.

David Douglass (U. of Rochester) and John Christy (U. of Alabama, Huntsville) describe a particularly egregious instance of the blatant subversion of peer-review -- all supported by evidence from Climategate e-mails.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it seems some have missed the point of this thread.

i didn't want a debate on whether climate change is real or not, or on whether we are the primary cause. it is and we are and only morons can deny it now but that's beside the point.

the point of this thread was to show that even dismissing climate change, moving away from fossil fuels as soon as p ...[text shortened]... ills people and reducing it is going to save money. (if saving lives is not sexy enough for you)

Na, it's just about collecting more of our money.

And as we know, the poorer you are the shorter your life on average.