Climate change

[Guest]

A great many on the right live in a fantasy world, as to be fair so do some on the left. They watch and read right wing "news" outlets and commentators and believe they are truthful and "fair and balanced,", when in fact they are anything but in many cases. Then when their facts are exposed as false or misstated, they cry that the "mainstream (socialist) media is twisting the truth, as always. Therefore they are allowed to lie or misstate the truth without ever losing any perceived credibility among their devotees and standing as the only ones telling the truth. Anything that is unfavorable to their cause or their political idols, or ideals, is dismissed as a smear campaign by the "lamestream media". One of the more egregious examples is climate change. Overwhelming numbers of legitimate scientists and climatologists agree that Climate change (global warming) is real and, in part due to human actions. Their are a few scientists who state disagreement with that hypothesis but,oat are financially supported by right wing and/or industry groups. Because they are financially supported by interests who want to get rid of environmental regulations, the right almost universally denies the legitimate science. If you only pay attention to information from the right, you are likely to be convinced that man made climate change is a hoax and a left wing conspiracy. Ask yourself, who benefits from accepting that climate change is real? The left doesn't benefit except to the extent that people unite to take measures to control and possibly reverse some of the factors and thus preserving our planet. Who benefits if we deny climate change? Industries who are contributing to pollution, who oppose regulations that will cost money and perhaps hurt their business - thus their hefty political contributions. All of us today will benefit by denying climate change by getting energy and goods cheaper and more available, but the future of our planet and our environment is likely to deteriorate for future generations. The science is clear, and almost no one benefits immediately by taking action to reverse it, but our grandchildren and their offspring will pay a huge price for our inaction. I am prepared to be called names for this post so fire away, it won't bother me, but it will hold a mirror up to you.

[Guest]

A great many on the right live in a fantasy world, as to be fair so do some on the left. They watch and read right wing "news" outlets and commentators and believe they are truthful and "fair and balanced,", when in fact they are anything but in many cases. Then when their facts are exposed as false or misstated, they cry that the "mainstream (socialist) media is twisting the truth, as always. Therefore they are allowed to lie or misstate the truth without ever losing any perceived credibility among their devotees and standing as the only ones telling the truth. Anything that is unfavorable to their cause or their political idols, or ideals, is dismissed as a smear campaign by the "lamestream media". One of the more egregious examples is climate change. Overwhelming numbers of legitimate scientists and climatologists agree that Climate change (global warming) is real and, in part due to human actions. Their are a few scientists who state disagreement with that hypothesis but,oat are financially supported by right wing and/or industry groups. Because they are financially supported by interests who want to get rid of environmental regulations, the right almost universally denies the legitimate science. If you only pay attention to information from the right, you are likely to be convinced that man made climate change is a hoax and a left wing conspiracy. Ask yourself, who benefits from accepting that climate change is real? The left doesn't benefit except to the extent that people unite to take measures to control and possibly reverse some of the factors and thus preserving our planet. Who benefits if we deny climate change? Industries who are contributing to pollution, who oppose regulations that will cost money and perhaps hurt their business - thus their hefty political contributions. All of us today will benefit by denying climate change by getting energy and goods cheaper and more available, but the future of our planet and our environment is likely to deteriorate for future generations. The science is clear, and almost no one benefits immediately by taking action to reverse it, but our grandchildren and their offspring will pay a huge price for our inaction. I am prepared to be called names for this post so fire away, it won't bother me, but it will hold a mirror up to you.

Pretty obvious to me that there is Climate Change. And if there is a very long term cycle which are sure doing quite a bit to speed it up with our pollution.

[Guest]

I am not so sure the "science is clear".

For the sake of discussion let's say it is feasible.

What is most assredly not clear or understood is what to do about it. And most importantly what to do about it that is not politically motivated.

And we all accept the science of for every action there is a reaction....what are the actions with any predictable reactions that demonstrate if we do thus and so here is what can be expected. What kind of time frame will the actions take before results? Months? Years? Score? Decades? Centuries?

There is far too much intellectual conjecture and political motivation for a real valid, believable hypothesis.

I also believe that most explanations are based on the here and now or what can be referred to as the "as-is" condition. Where does the current as-is condition sit relative to climate changes over at least the recorded centuries portray?

For me there is absolutely no motivation for me (and many, many others) to be had from a political presentation. We all know that politicians priorities are self centered. We know they increasingly less and less often do or propose anything that is for the good of those they supposedly represent....let alone mankind.

If there is a case for reality, it has yet to be made.
For example; I quit smoking in the early 60's when the surgeon general said it would/could kill you. There was overwhelming evidence provided by the medical community and other sciences.

Until such time as a non political inspired hypothesis, I am still waiting.

[Guest]

Yep, we have a lot of states suffering a bunch from all that global warming, especially D.C. It's so warm today that the gov is closed again. Wonder if this is a conspiracy to keep from releasing Hillary's email.

Anyone complaining about pollution, obviously has not been around very long. Our air quality has improved substantially in the past two decades. Smog is at an all time low. Of course, when you have an idiot in charge that has idiots following his every thought, telling the world that air pollution is more dangerous than terrorism, what can one expect?

If you want to see REAL air pollution, try flying into New Delhi, India in Dec. I have seen flights diverted because of the pollution. But, they are working on cleaning it up.

With all the problems in the world today, Climate Change is hardly that important. The climate will change with or without man.

[Guest]

I am not so sure the "science is clear".

For the sake of discussion let's say it is feasible.

What is most assredly not clear or understood is what to do about it. And most importantly what to do about it that is not politically motivated.

And we all accept the science of for every action there is a reaction....what are the actions with any predictable reactions that demonstrate if we do thus and so here is what can be expected. What kind of time frame will the actions take before results? Months? Years? Score? Decades? Centuries?

There is far too much intellectual conjecture and political motivation for a real valid, believable hypothesis.


I also believe that most explanations are based on the here and now or what can be referred to as the "as-is" condition. Where does the current as-is condition sit relative to climate changes over at least the recorded centuries portray?

For me there is absolutely no motivation for me (and many, many others) to be had from a political presentation. We all know that politicians priorities are self centered. We know they increasingly less and less often do or propose anything that is for the good of those they supposedly represent....let alone mankind.

If there is a case for reality, it has yet to be made.
For example; I quit smoking in the early 60's when the surgeon general said it would/could kill you. There was overwhelming evidence provided by the medical community and other sciences.

Until such time as a non political inspired hypothesis, I am still waiting.

Fair questions. I see no downside to exploring wind and wave energy as a clean alternative to oil and coal as an example. Oil and coal will most assuredly run out one day, while wind and ocean waves will never be depleted. Cutting down on pollution from industrial and consumer uses of fossil fuels would also improve current air and water quality, and potentially slow or stop the warming.

[Guest]

Yep, we have a lot of states suffering a bunch from all that global warming, especially D.C. It's so warm today that the gov is closed again. Wonder if this is a conspiracy to keep from releasing Hillary's email.

Anyone complaining about pollution, obviously has not been around very long. Our air quality has improved substantially in the past two decades. Smog is at an all time low. Of course, when you have an idiot in charge that has idiots following his every thought, telling the world that air pollution is more dangerous than terrorism, what can one expect?

If you want to see REAL air pollution, try flying into New Delhi, India in Dec. I have seen flights diverted because of the pollution. But, they are working on cleaning it up.

With all the problems in the world today, Climate Change is hardly that important. The climate will change with or without man.

Your reference to the "weather" in D.C. Is typical and silly. Climate is a global trend, while weather can, and will run the gamut of extremes in any given location. Yes, our pollution, both air and water, has improved greatly over our lifetime, primarily because our predecessors believed what the scientists were saying, and what everyone was experiencing and they took measures to control it before the polluters began buying the politics of the issue. We are attempting to convince India and others that it is in their best interests to get on board and control what they are doing to contribute to be problem, but when we can't reach consensus because of politics and money it is difficult to move others to do so.

[Guest]

Yep, global warming is causing the polar ice to get thicker. We should spend tons of money on that instead of health care and feeding the poverty stricken.

[Guest]

Yep, global warming is causing the polar ice to get thicker. We should spend tons of money on that instead of health care and feeding the poverty stricken.

I think you mean thinner or non existent!

[Guest]

I think you mean thinner or non existent!

Either one depending on what report is being read and who is talking.

When they are not espousing the virtues or lack of them relative to the thickness of ice some where thet keep busy by measuring passing clouds.

[Guest]

Please state your credentials in this area.

A great many on the right live in a fantasy world, as to be fair so do some on the left. They watch and read right wing "news" outlets and commentators and believe they are truthful and "fair and balanced,", when in fact they are anything but in many cases. Then when their facts are exposed as false or misstated, they cry that the "mainstream (socialist) media is twisting the truth, as always. Therefore they are allowed to lie or misstate the truth without ever losing any perceived credibility among their devotees and standing as the only ones telling the truth. Anything that is unfavorable to their cause or their political idols, or ideals, is dismissed as a smear campaign by the "lamestream media". One of the more egregious examples is climate change. Overwhelming numbers of legitimate scientists and climatologists agree that Climate change (global warming) is real and, in part due to human actions. Their are a few scientists who state disagreement with that hypothesis but,oat are financially supported by right wing and/or industry groups. Because they are financially supported by interests who want to get rid of environmental regulations, the right almost universally denies the legitimate science. If you only pay attention to information from the right, you are likely to be convinced that man made climate change is a hoax and a left wing conspiracy. Ask yourself, who benefits from accepting that climate change is real? The left doesn't benefit except to the extent that people unite to take measures to control and possibly reverse some of the factors and thus preserving our planet. Who benefits if we deny climate change? Industries who are contributing to pollution, who oppose regulations that will cost money and perhaps hurt their business - thus their hefty political contributions. All of us today will benefit by denying climate change by getting energy and goods cheaper and more available, but the future of our planet and our environment is likely to deteriorate for future generations. The science is clear, and almost no one benefits immediately by taking action to reverse it, but our grandchildren and their offspring will pay a huge price for our inaction. I am prepared to be called names for this post so fire away, it won't bother me, but it will hold a mirror up to you.

[Guest]

You might want to do some research before posting.

I think you mean thinner or non existent!

[Guest]

I think you mean thinner or non existent!

Nope, THICKER. Surprise, I bet it is disheartening to have someone tell you something that will make you do some of your own research in order to argue to the point.

[Guest]

Too many climate liars have been busted. Climate model predictions have been a big FAIL. Climate change movement founder has even been quoted as saying the predictions have been wrong, and cannot explain the warming pause. One of 50 excuses for the pause was deep ocean warming. Now, it's settled science that the pause is due to deep ocean warming. Now, "renewed" data shows NO warming pause. Really!? Throwing up...

[Guest]

Personally, I prefer warm over cold. That's why I moved to Florida.

Conservatives have their Palin
Liberals have their Gore

I hope the temps go up in the 70's as predicted today.

[Guest]

If ignorance is bliss, the right wingers must live in ecstasy.

[Guest]

If ignorance is bliss, the right wingers must live in ecstasy.

Maybe so, but at least we live in REALITY. We don't have to be told how we think, like the blindly led guppies of the left. How does it feel to be so needy of the gov?

[Guest]

IMO when China, india, Mexico, Brazil and the rest of the majority of pollution producing countries catch up with our standards what we do is unless. Some cities in China you can't even see the sun, worse tha LA in the late 60s.

If all countries are not on the same plan it useless. Some scream change but don't do nothing to reduce there carbon usage. Just want to make someone else suffer and pay for it.

Then, there the earth cycle around the sun which we can do nothing about which has Hugh effect on climate on earth. IMO we are still warming up from the ice age and when the earth cycles further away from the sun no taxing going to prevent the big freeze.

Bottom line till all countries have the same standards nothing will change due to the wind currents the ozone will still suffer. We can create the best standards in the world and if Mexico don't have the same the wind just blows are way you still get polluted.

China laughing all the way to the bank, only in another 20 years when there slave labor starts dying off they will either import slave labor or findly realize they are killing off ther population.

IMO this thread rant is useless along with g20 summits when not even minimum standards are the same world wide.

[Guest]

IMO when China, india, Mexico, Brazil and the rest of the majority of pollution producing countries catch up with our standards what we do is unless. Some cities in China you can't even see the sun, worse tha LA in the late 60s.

If all countries are not on the same plan it useless. Some scream change but don't do nothing to reduce there carbon usage. Just want to make someone else suffer and pay for it.

Then, there the earth cycle around the sun which we can do nothing about which has Hugh effect on climate on earth. IMO we are still warming up from the ice age and when the earth cycles further away from the sun no taxing going to prevent the big freeze.

Bottom line till all countries have the same standards nothing will change due to the wind currents the ozone will still suffer. We can create the best standards in the world and if Mexico don't have the same the wind just blows are way you still get polluted.

China laughing all the way to the bank, only in another 20 years when there slave labor starts dying off they will either import slave labor or findly realize they are killing off ther population.

IMO this thread rant is useless along with g20 summits when not even minimum standards are the same world wide.

:agree:

[Guest]

We didn't wait for China to clean its water to clean ours. We didn't wait for India to regulated air pollution before we regulated ours. We didn't care that some people might loose jobs making cigarettes or growing tobacco to accept that smoking kills and act on it. Stop saying we can't stop hurting our planet if they won't stop. We have global warming, fact. Humans are a major factor in that warming. We can do nothing and watch extremely significant changes in the next 50 to 100 years or do nothing until China does something. Or we can lead, we can be an example, we can take responsibility as a nation and as a democracy and show some courage. Only a few degrees you say.. So what if the temperature is 76 instead of 72. Simple answer.. how about we raise your body temperature by just 4 degrees. Got it now? A few degrees is a major disruption to the ecosystem.

[Guest]

So we go the extra mile and have the highest standards on the planet. But, we are no near the worst polluters. It will only make difference if all are on the same page. So if we are page 90 of 100 page book and the rest of the world still on page 10. In theory it still won't make difference. My body temperature still going to rise.

So if you so dead right then you can do something about it. Stop driving your car, stop burning electric, stop buying electronic's, stop eating meat. Stop passing gas. Stop creating trash, now get 3 billion to stop it, not just couple hundred million and then in hundred years we can see if it made difference.

If you can't do this? Then quite being hypocrite.

[Guest]

If ignorance is bliss, the right wingers must live in ecstasy.

Naw, we live in Obama's Utopia....:a20:..:1rotfl:...:1rotfl:

[Guest]

So we go the extra mile and have the highest standards on the planet. But, we are no near the worst polluters. It will only make difference if all are on the same page. So if we are page 90 of 100 page book and the rest of the world still on page 10. In theory it still won't make difference. My body temperature still going to rise.

So if you so dead right then you can do something about it. Stop driving your car, stop burning electric, stop buying electronic's, stop eating meat. Stop passing gas. Stop creating trash, now get 3 billion to stop it, not just couple hundred million and then in hundred years we can see if it made difference.

If you can't do this? Then quite being hypocrite.

Trouble is that if you quit all that, then you die and put off more decomposing gas. Just can't win.