Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^ all kidding aside. I still don't buy it. Here is a recent article about tornadoes and the scientist quote is beneath it. From what I could read they have no clue along with climate change.
See post 19 regarding mankind's massive burning of fossil fuels in the last century.
The root of your ignorance is the unstated belief that none of the massive amount of pollution resulting from the burning of fossil fuels has any impact on the environment.
You seem to belief that the measured rise of ocean acidity, which scientists can measure and explain to any decent high school general science and chemistry student, is some unexplained magic of nature that is converting the oceans into an environment inhospitable to coral, shellfish, and other marine life. The logical, and chemically explainable, scientific explanation is that the oceans are absorbing massive amounts of excess carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels and converting the carbon dioxide into carbonic acid But this scientific explanation of scientists to you is rubbish, part of your "hoax."
Similarly, you believe the magic of nature is responsible for melting the world's ice, warming the oceans, thermal ocean expansion (you do now that water expands as it is heated, don't you?), etc. Sea level rise already is in the process of inundating Miami Beach, FL, and other low-lying coastal areas globally, even entire island nations.
None of this matters to you because your intellect is so great that, like Donald Trump, you can determine that all of the climate change scientists are liars and engaged in a grand, conspiratorial "hoax." So we should believe in your magical, unsubstantiated explanation of climate change, and pretend like the massive, still increasing burning of fossil fuels has no consequences.
Or we can believe that what we have been warned about for several decades by climate change scientists is now manifesting itself in our environment.
What bothers me is that we have a federal government run by climate change deniers that actually is promoting more fossil fuel burning and resisting efforts, such as in states like California, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The ocean coral is dying, and unless we act quickly, perhaps storing coral species in environmental holding tanks across the world, we may lose any chance to save these important life-giving organisms from extinction. Of course, effectively putting species in marine zoos means little if we don't halt ASAP the destruction of our environment and allow the planet the centuries needed to recover from the damage already done.
Scientists are telling us that the failure to act may result in famines, massive inundation of highly populated coastal areas, massive reduction of marine life, even reduced oxygen production by the world's oceans, much higher atmospheric temperatures, etc., with all of the civil strife that will accompany these consequences.
I'm going with the scientists on climate change science and I believe that climate change deniers are a conspiracy of dunces and too often liars. Whenever I hear a Republican Congressperson say that man-made climate change science is uncertain, I personally gag in disgust.
Hopefully, the majority of Americans are capable of rational thought and still believe in science based on empirical observation rather than the hubristic ignorance of man-made climate change deniers and the "greeders" who manipulate them.
Since you've done so much research you've probably come across the name S. Fred Singer. He's an atmospheric physicist. Lets see what he had to say in an interview with the National Association of Scholars:
Asked what he would like to see happen in regard to public opinion and policy on climate change, Singer replied,
"I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause. If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes,then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive, and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems."
Think about something WRnative, people alive during the 1800s and early-mid 1900s didn't have the ability to monitor things like how much ice caps were melting or growing with satellite imagery, yet those perpetrating this hoax compare how much ice is melting or growing from that period to today to scaremonger. And trying to compare how much ice has melted or grown since satellites have been monitoring such things is silly as well, it's such a short period of time to compare, and we know the ice constantly shrinks or grows.
I'm all for taking care of the environment in a sensible way. However, one must be careful of falling for the hysteria. Heck, part of the reason so many factories have gone offshore or nor been built is because of environmental extremism. The nuttiness has cost the livelihood of many workers. And because the wackos are so hysterical it has people tuning them out.
Believe what you want, I chose to be rational and believe the obvious truth staring us all in the face. I'm sure you'll want to pontificate as you usually do, so by all means, have the last word.
Since you've done so much research you've probably come across the name S. Fred Singer. He's an atmospheric physicist. Lets see what he had to say in an interview with the National Association of Scholars:
Asked what he would like to see happen in regard to public opinion and policy on climate change, Singer replied,
"I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause. If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes,then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive, and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems."
Think about something WRnative, people alive during the 1800s and early-mid 1900s didn't have the ability to monitor things like how much ice caps were melting or growing with satellite imagery, yet those perpetrating this hoax compare how much ice is melting or growing from that period to today to scaremonger. And trying to compare how much ice has melted or grown since satellites have been monitoring such things is silly as well, it's such a short period of time to compare, and we know the ice constantly shrinks or grows.
I'm all for taking care of the environment in a sensible way. However, one must be careful of falling for the hysteria. Heck, part of the reason so many factories have gone offshore or nor been built is because of environmental extremism. The nuttiness has cost the livelihood of many workers. And because the wackos are so hysterical it has people tuning them out.
Believe what you want, I chose to be rational and believe the obvious truth staring us all in the face. I'm sure you'll want to pontificate as you usually do, so by all means, have the last word.
Actually, I've followed Fred Singer for decades. I vividly remember a prescient op-ed piece that Singer wrote in the WSJ almost 40 years ago during a period when Wall Street was promoting investment partnerships predicting with certainty $200/bbl oil. Singer pointed out that at that time globally much of oil consumption was used for electricity generation and that the world possessed massive natural gas reserves which cheaply could be substituted for oil. My memory is that op-ed piece almost broke the back immediately of the raging oil speculation of the period. I certainly sent it to scores of clients, and Singer was very right.
Largely because of Singer, I largely dismissed concerns about man-made climate change until the early 21st century, when it became clear that his opinions were not supported by ongoing peer-reviewed research. Most significantly, as with most man-made climate change deniers, Singer never discusses the impacts of ocean acidification, which was a rapidly rising concern among marine biologists intensifying after 2000. As fan of Rachel Carson, the oceans are a particular interest of mine.
Needless to say the 94-year-old Singer is largely retired and to my knowledge, he never engaged in peer-reviewed climate change research. He reportedly consults for the energy industry and is associated with the Heartland Institute, another man-made climate change denier website. In short, Singer's opinions about climate change ignore empirical evidence such as about the accelerating Greenland ice melt and the melting of the Arctic Ocean ice cover, let alone ocean acidification and ocean warming.
Fred Singer is promoted by the man-made climate change science denying editorial page of the Wall St. Journal, not surprisingly owned by the Trump-loving Fox News organization.
Read again about Richard Muller, an active scientist who once shared man-made climate change denying views similar to Singer. Muller today is a much more reputable scientist than Singer. He actually reviewed the climate data, and said that the earth is warming as predicted by accepted models and that fossil fuel consumption is responsible. See post 19.
You dismiss, like all man-made climate change deniers, including Singer, any discussion of the disastrous combined impacts of ocean acidification and ocean warming on marine life. The destruction of the world's coral species, now well underway, is of no concern to you. The threat to plankton which is at the bottom of the marine food chain and provides much of the world's oxygen, also is of no concern to you.
To my knowledge, there is no longer any peer-reviewed research theory dismissing the reality of man-made climate change. If you are aware of one, please post it.
Please provide a link to any research that Singer has produced or which he references that alternatively explains the global warming of the atmosphere, but particularly of the oceans, which have absorbed over 90 percent of the heat associated with man-made climate change.
You seriously are arguing that we didn't have good readings, including the thickness, about the Arctic ice cap decades ago, long before the sustained ice melt in the Arctic Ocean as a result of man-made climate change has taken place??? What monstrous baloney. It's sad enough that you've fallen for denier "Big Lies," but hopefully few will follow you down this ridiculous rat hole. BTW, have you never heard of the U.S.S. Nautilus, and its exploration under the North Pole? The Arctic ice cap has been extensively mapped and monitored by the U.S. Navy given its importance to nuclear war, and the ability of "boomers" to hide there and then break through the ice to launch an attack. Have you ever seen Clint Eastwood's "Firefox?"
The ongoing inundation of U.S. and global coastal areas in your view has no cost. More devastating droughts and floods have no cost. Anticipated declines in agricultural production have no consequences. And, as always for a climate change denier, not a mention of ocean acidification and ocean warming, extensively documented, and posing an immense threat and already destroying marine life on which humans are dependent for protein, oxygen, and simply environmental joy.
You even ignore the likelihood that alternative fuels even today are cheaper than fossil fuels in many cases, and will become increasingly so in the future if the U.S. were incentivize the commercialization of key technologies such as organic flow batterie and zinc vehicle batteries for electric vehicles.
You are not rational. You're both a consumer and promoter of "Big Lie" man-made climate change science denial propaganda. Rationality requires respect of empirical data and of the trained scientists who present and interpret the data.
He makes a bunch of claims in an opinion piece with no actual links to data. The only link he gave was to supposed satellite data that no one can actually see due to a paywall. Michaels is also a well-known climate change skeptic, so hardly an unbiased source.
Also, no one should be paying attention to any one person's singular view. There is overwhelming consensus on this, even as individuals may disagree on potential impacts and severity. Michaels himself has admitted the that planet is getting warmer. He just rejects that it's of any consequence. But again, he is in the very small minority here.
I've already posted this link that explains how Hansen's projections, adjusted for the impact of phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (which were destroying sunlight-filtering ozone in the stratosphere and also are a powerful greenhouse gas) of the Montreal Protocol, were fairly accurate. The article at this link specifically documents how Michaels is a serial prevaricator when it comes to Hansen and how a significant portion of his salary comes from fossil fuel industry sources.
IF the world had reacted swiftly to the warnings of Hansen and others and acted more aggressively to conserve energy and transition away from fossil fuel consumption, Hansen's calculations obviously would have been even more overstated.
What Michaels and other critics of Hansen NEVER admit is the obvious reality that Hansen did accurately predict the TREND of ATMOSPHERIC warming, which was a shocking revelation at the time.
What Michaels and all climate change deniers NEVER DISCUSS, let alone admit, is the massive warming of the oceans which has checked atmospheric warming, nor the ravages of ocean acidification, not widely imagined, if at all, in 1990. Such empirical data can't be refuted by man-made climate change deniers, so it is ignored. More than 90 percent of the global warming of the last 50 years has taken place in the oceans. As global ice is reduced, and as reflective snow cover shrinks, atmospheric warming will accelerate. Man-made climate change science deniers at times seem unable to grasp that ice melts, and, as it does, the matter surrounding it becomes warmer.
And Hansen was only one of many climate scientists. The models have been refined and the most accurate models now predict the most alarming consequences.
It's a massive straw man argument to attack Hansen's initial projections, prepared with relatively minute empirical inputs and without the benefit of today's relatively massive computing capabilities, and totally ignore other more modern and accurate models. What's important is that Hansen sounded the first warning, and that Hansen's warning essentially has been ignored, largely due to the actions of the fossil fuel industries and those other industries dependent upon the extravagant consumption of fossil fuels.
Noted repeatedly in this thread, ocean warming and acidification already is killing the world's coral species at a disturbing rate, with massively negative impacts on marine life. More disastrously, marine biologists are beginning to worry about the destruction of the world's plankton, which support most marine life and provide much of the world's oxygen. See posts 39 and 42.
No man-made climate change denier in any C-D thread, despite many inquiries, has explained to me why they dismiss the destruction of world's coral species with so little apparent concern, and why they aren't terrified that similar processes shortly will begin to devastate the world's plankton species with even more disastrous results. How about you? What about Patrick Michaels??? How do articles such as the following one not disgust and frighten man-made climate change science deniers?
Also, please explain to me what you and Michaels believes happens to the 5.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide released annually into the world's atmosphere as the result of fossil fuel burning.
Somehow, none of the observed destruction, including the environmental ravages caused by thawing tundra and shrinking Arctic ice cap, means anything to man-made climate change deniers. They support politicians who not only ignore and spout falsehoods about the existential threat to humanity posed by fossil fuel consumption, these politicians block efforts to transition away from fossil fuels and actually encourage greater fossil fuel consumption. This is dangerous madness, especially when many of these technologies deliver energy more cheaply, and employ energy more efficiently, already than competitive fossil fuel technologies.
It's repulsive that man-made climate change deniers mock, let alone ignore, the warnings and peer-reviewed research of the world's best climate scientists. And I repeat that anybody who would believe a Patrick Michaels over the world's best climate scientists, and empirical data and environmental observations easily understood by anybody with a moderate intelligence, is IMO a close-minded dunce, and an especially dangerous dunce when President of the United States.
Sadly, scientists seemingly have been too conservative in their warnings. Even a couple years ago, they didn't foresee the rapid destruction of global corals. And only now are they beginning to warn of the much greater and earlier dire consequences if vicious feedback loops, such as would result from the release of methane trapped in thawing tundra and deep ocean methane clathrates, become reality. See post 26.
World's been changing for a million years. Where a sea used to be is now desert, where land used to be is now ocean.. under the miles deep ice up north was woolly mammoth with green plant matter in it's digestive system.. they find fossils of fish in the mountains near deserts. So where was the factories 10-20000 years ago? I will wait for the answer. Lol
There are a lot of studies on the inter-continental effects of climate change, but none that I know of that are based on possible current migration patterns due to climate change. They are projections based on historical relationships between temperature(s) and migration; many are are based on recreation patterns, not permanent migration. There is a big difference between choosing to visit a beach recreation place, which is very hot, compared to one that is has a milder climate vs. permanent migration under two different climate regimes.
World's been changing for a million years. Where a sea used to be is now desert, where land used to be is now ocean.. under the miles deep ice up north was woolly mammoth with green plant matter in it's digestive system.. they find fossils of fish in the mountains near deserts. So where was the factories 10-20000 years ago? I will wait for the answer. Lol
Classic straw man argument -- climate changes over time. Duh! The human body also changes over a lifetime. That doesn't mean that we should raise a child on beer, candy, ice cream, and French fries and then excuse the resulting health problems as just a natural result of aging.
Comparing natural changes that took place over thousands of years, if not eons, with changes over just several decades and claiming they are the same is preposterous.
Are you seriously arguing that the 5.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere annually as a result of fossil fuel burning have no consequences? That the empirical data showing more acidic and much warmer oceans in just several decades, with no natural explanations, is not extraordinary and easily associated by scientists with the massive increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels? That marine life is being seriously impacted and even know important coral species are being killed off at an increasing rate? That storms, such as Hurricane Michael, are intensifying rapidly over warmer ocean waters and causing much greater damage. Storms, such as Hurricane Florence, also are extremely unusual by historical norms, both in path and humidity content, again reflecting warmer oceans.
How do you explain ocean acidification? Are you not concerned about the destruction of coral species and the existential threat to humanity posed by the potential extinction of marine life, especially the plankton that enable most marine life and provide much of the world's oxygen supply?
Do you believe that more destructive hurricanes are inconsequential?
Labeling the arguments of man-made climate change science deniers as sophomoric would be much too generous.
Ohioans need to understand that we constantly are being asked to accept reduced federal services and reduced federal aid in order to assist states hardest hit by man-made climate change with massively increased aid and recovery assistance.
Classic straw man argument -- climate changes over time. Duh! The human body also changes over a lifetime. That doesn't mean that we should raise a child on beer, candy, ice cream, and French fries and then excuse the resulting health problems as just a natural result of aging.
I think that is actually a really good analogy for some of this forums posters (who clearly don't understand what's going on).
You visit your doctor with chest pains. He runs a series of tests. Those tests indicate you have coronary heart disease and diabetes. You ask why and how? Because you ate like s*** and never exercised Brad! To save your life he recommends you some radical treatment options....
Do you:
a) Laugh and scoff at him, "The body is always changing and aging. It's natural you idiot." Then raise your nose and call him a shill for the big doctor's associations?
b) Do you listen to him (because he is your f'n doctor!) and follow his recommendations?
c) Do you believe him but refuse the treatment anyways because you want to die an especially horrible death?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
