2015 Warmest Year on Record

[Deleted member 2897]

If I understand it correctly, the whole premise of this article is that some "green" people have been using fear to generate revenues to support their cause. And that using fear for that purpose is a hoax and a scam.

I think your premise is right on. Its why I liked Dr. Judith Curry from Georgia Tech so much. Humans are polluting and damaging our environment. We should all work to minimize emissions and pollution and waste. What I take issue with is when people say I'm a science denier because I don't agree with their public policy proposals. Why can't I state that I agree with all the science in my first couple of sentences but disagree we need a government takeover of all kinds of industries, exorbitant tax rates, an end to airlines, renovating 10 million buildings, and so on.

 

[TampaBuzz]

The point of the article was that someone formerly held in very high regard by the environmental community is now saying the whole thing is a hoax and a scam. The article never attempted to justify or prove his claims, only to report them, and that is what the article did. So why would you choose to ignore that?

To quote the article in all of its conspiracy theory glory, "Scientists are co-opted and corrupted by politicians and bureaucracies invested in advancing the narrative of “climate change” in order to further centralize political power and control." Sorry, I have a really hard time accepting that scientists on every continent on the globe that study global warming are bought and paid for by politicians. This supposed article is on par with the usual nonsense that Brietbart publishs.

 

[TampaBuzz]

I think your premise is right on. Its why I liked Dr. Judith Curry from Georgia Tech so much. Humans are polluting and damaging our environment. We should all work to minimize emissions and pollution and waste. What I take issue with is when people say I'm a science denier because I don't agree with their public policy proposals. Why can't I state that I agree with all the science in my first couple of sentences but disagree we need a government takeover of all kinds of industries, exorbitant tax rates, an end to airlines, renovating 10 million buildings, and so on.

I guess you must have hated the clean water act when it was passed - which did not "take over" any industries; but did put regulations in place that require that industry actually treat the wastewater they were dumping into our rivers. That sure had a very positive and useful benefit to society. Left to their own devices, industries (especially publicly traded ones) will almost always make decisions to maximize profit over the needs of society writ large. i.e. profits trump morals (Oooooh did I make a pun)?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

To quote the article in all of its conspiracy theory glory, "Scientists are co-opted and corrupted by politicians and bureaucracies invested in advancing the narrative of “climate change” in order to further centralize political power and control." Sorry, I have a really hard time accepting that scientists on every continent on the globe that study global warming are bought and paid for by politicians. This supposed article is on par with the usual nonsense that Brietbart publishs.

Yea, that's a little too black helicopter theory.

Now, take a few steps back. The professors and scientists' money and career depend on keeping the flow of money coming in. They know why they money has been granted to study certain things, and they know the desired outcome. That's exactly the opposite of how double blind studies are supposed to work. There's also tons and tons of examples of what happens to you if you even start to try and tamp down the hysteria even the slightest bit (see Dr. Judith Curry).

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I guess you must have hated the clean water act when it was passed - which did not "take over" any industries; but did put regulations in place that require that industry actually treat the wastewater they were dumping into our rivers. That sure had a very positive and useful benefit to society. Left to their own devices, industries (especially publicly traded ones) will almost always make decisions to maximize profit over the needs of society writ large. i.e. profits trump morals (Oooooh did I make a pun)?

I just typed that humans were polluting the world and we should all do our best to reduce it. Then you turn around and accuse me of hating the clean water act. LOL. The clean water act did not 'take over' any industries, because it has nothing to do with global warming, carbon trading, and so on. LOL.

Read the Green New Deal, which proposes eliminating air travel, cows, and renovating every single building in the United States. Now that's some heavy duty regulation right there. LOL.

 

[jayparr]

This is the deep state doing this to make themselves richer! And that is by using your tax money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

To quote the article in all of its conspiracy theory glory, "Scientists are co-opted and corrupted by politicians and bureaucracies invested in advancing the narrative of “climate change” in order to further centralize political power and control." Sorry, I have a really hard time accepting that scientists on every continent on the globe that study global warming are bought and paid for by politicians. This supposed article is on par with the usual nonsense that Brietbart publishs.

Again, the article only quoted Moore. You can take issue with Moore if you wish, but those are his words, not Breitbart's words. And although obviously not EVERY scientist on the globe is bought and paid for by politicians, I think it's obvious throughout the western world that many are.

 

[Lotta Booze]

I think your premise is right on. Its why I liked Dr. Judith Curry from Georgia Tech so much. Humans are polluting and damaging our environment. We should all work to minimize emissions and pollution and waste. What I take issue with is when people say I'm a science denier because I don't agree with their public policy proposals. Why can't I state that I agree with all the science in my first couple of sentences but disagree we need a government takeover of all kinds of industries, exorbitant tax rates, an end to airlines, renovating 10 million buildings, and so on.

I think the issue regarding the bolded boils down to a couple things:

1 - the polarity and tribalism of politics has led to environmental issues to become a left/right issue when I don't think it should be. And so you may disagree with the extent that the Democrats or the left feels they should address it....the other side of the aisle is taking the position of "We don't even know if the planet is getting warmer....but if it is it's not humans doing it so keep on keeping on". And rolling back regulations to prevent polluting waterways, etc. And especially amongst the twitter left there's an endless amount of purity tests of thought where if you don't believe "exactly this" then you are x, y, z.

2 - There are differences of thought as far as urgency and prioritization. Some may think that obviously pollution isn't great and we should limit it but what happens happens and we'll figure it out down the road. I think a previous poster mentioned something like this with the waters in Florida. "If they still live there when it happens then they've had ample warning". Which doesn't really add up when one side is claiming that there is no issue and all is well. While the other side views it as an existential threat for human beings that don't have the luxury of time to wait for the market to adjust or come up with a solution when it's too late and view government action as the only recourse left.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I think the issue regarding the bolded boils down to a couple things:

1 - the polarity and tribalism of politics has led to environmental issues to become a left/right issue when I don't think it should be. And so you may disagree with the extent that the Democrats or the left feels they should address it....the other side of the aisle is taking the position of "We don't even know if the planet is getting warmer....but if it is it's not humans doing it so keep on keeping on". And rolling back regulations to prevent polluting waterways, etc. And especially amongst the twitter left there's an endless amount of purity tests of thought where if you don't believe "exactly this" then you are x, y, z.

2 - There are differences of thought as far as urgency and prioritization. Some may think that obviously pollution isn't great and we should limit it but what happens happens and we'll figure it out down the road. I think a previous poster mentioned something like this with the waters in Florida. "If they still live there when it happens then they've had ample warning". Which doesn't really add up when one side is claiming that there is no issue and all is well. While the other side views it as an existential threat for human beings that don't have the luxury of time to wait for the market to adjust or come up with a solution when it's too late and view government action as the only recourse left.

Yeo, I totally agree. *******s like Trump and other politicians saying the whole thing is a hoax is unhelpful. We should put him on a raft in the Pacific Ocean trash pile that’s thousands of acres and let him spend a week there.

 

[jayparr]

Global warming is complete lie! The earth has cold days, cool days warm days, and hot days. Select your fondness you would like to live such as snow skying, swimming, grilling outdoors, taking long trail walks now that weather of your choice in the correct environment from day to day or decade to decade will not have any drastic change in the time after time!!

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I think the issue regarding the bolded boils down to a couple things:

1 - the polarity and tribalism of politics has led to environmental issues to become a left/right issue when I don't think it should be. And so you may disagree with the extent that the Democrats or the left feels they should address it....the other side of the aisle is taking the position of "We don't even know if the planet is getting warmer....but if it is it's not humans doing it so keep on keeping on". And rolling back regulations to prevent polluting waterways, etc. And especially amongst the twitter left there's an endless amount of purity tests of thought where if you don't believe "exactly this" then you are x, y, z.

2 - There are differences of thought as far as urgency and prioritization. Some may think that obviously pollution isn't great and we should limit it but what happens happens and we'll figure it out down the road. I think a previous poster mentioned something like this with the waters in Florida. "If they still live there when it happens then they've had ample warning". Which doesn't really add up when one side is claiming that there is no issue and all is well. While the other side views it as an existential threat for human beings that don't have the luxury of time to wait for the market to adjust or come up with a solution when it's too late and view government action as the only recourse left.

Why is it that in the 70s, the world was on the verge of a new ice age, and if we didn't do something we would all be doomed? The same people said both things, and just as they were wrong then, they are wrong now. BTW, IF all this alarmism were real, then why do the politicians and little Greta totally ignore China and India, who emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than the entire western world?

 

[MWBATL]

I think the issue regarding the bolded boils down to a couple things:

1 - the polarity and tribalism of politics has led to environmental issues to become a left/right issue when I don't think it should be. And so you may disagree with the extent that the Democrats or the left feels they should address it....the other side of the aisle is taking the position of "We don't even know if the planet is getting warmer....but if it is it's not humans doing it so keep on keeping on". And rolling back regulations to prevent polluting waterways, etc. And especially amongst the twitter left there's an endless amount of purity tests of thought where if you don't believe "exactly this" then you are x, y, z.

2 - There are differences of thought as far as urgency and prioritization. Some may think that obviously pollution isn't great and we should limit it but what happens happens and we'll figure it out down the road. I think a previous poster mentioned something like this with the waters in Florida. "If they still live there when it happens then they've had ample warning". Which doesn't really add up when one side is claiming that there is no issue and all is well. While the other side views it as an existential threat for human beings that don't have the luxury of time to wait for the market to adjust or come up with a solution when it's too late and view government action as the only recourse left.

Personally, I don't see many folks (I said "many" not"no one") who don't believe there is an issue at all.

I know TONS of folks who do not believe or agree with the solutions proposed by the left...as being unsourced in scientific fact, as well as outrageously expensive and sometimes cloaking other societal objectives that have nothing to do with environmentalism.

Hence, we are left (as we so often are) with nothing since the left is outrageously too far left, and some on the right prefer to ignore the issue, and those of us who think some steps might be wise have no party or person to support.

 

[MWBATL]

I have been a personal victim of governmental over reach on the issue of waterways of the USA so I have little...no, make that NO sympathy for the left's views in this regard. I own some land. There is literally a ditch running through the land that is generally dry, but fills with rains and floods with very heavy rains. The local government has informed me this ditch is now considered a federal waterway and that there are now a bevy of restrictions upon me, with no compensation of course. In any other place, this would be considered a "taking" which is what happens when a government 'takes' land for social purposes. But the Federal Government is often exempt from such claims or lawsuits. Plus small folks like me could never afford the legal fees to challenge them.

All because of over-reaching bureaucrats in DC who often have little or no clue about how their regulations will affect real people in the real world.

Yes, I am angry about such cavalier attitudes. There is no social benefit to this in the rural area where this land is located. It is ...ridiculous.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Perhaps the biggest reason people on the right yawn about the terms global warming and climate change is because the people on the left who lead the hysteria act like they don’t even believe the stuff they spew themselves. If you honestly thought the environment was in a crisis, you wouldn’t fly in private jets all over the world and fly your entourage around the world with you like Prince Charles and Thunberg do.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...days-proudly-posing-Greta-Thunberg-Davos.html

 

[GTRules]

I have been a personal victim of governmental over reach on the issue of waterways of the USA so I have little...no, make that NO sympathy for the left's views in this regard. I own some land. There is literally a ditch running through the land that is generally dry, but fills with rains and floods with very heavy rains. The local government has informed me this ditch is now considered a federal waterway and that there are now a bevy of restrictions upon me, with no compensation of course. In any other place, this would be considered a "taking" which is what happens when a government 'takes' land for social purposes. But the Federal Government is often exempt from such claims or lawsuits. Plus small folks like me could never afford the legal fees to challenge them.

All because of over-reaching bureaucrats in DC who often have little or no clue about how their regulations will affect real people in the real world.

Yes, I am angry about such cavalier attitudes. There is no social benefit to this in the rural area where this land is located. It is ...ridiculous.

But any effort to put a stop to such government overreach is met with hysteria and doom. A friend of mine, when s couple of EPA regulations were rolled back to a sane level, accused us of wanting to return to the days of rivers catching fire.

No, all we want is the sanity to not call a dry swale a waterway.

 

[Sidewalking]

Considering that the source is Breitbart (famous for conspiracy theories) and that the article did not actually provide any scientific evidence, only conspiracy theories (big surprise!); I choose to ignore this reference. If I understand it correctly, the whole premise of this article is that some "green" people have been using fear to generate revenues to support their cause. And that using fear for that purpose is a hoax and a scam.

LMAO. Since every model and every climate prediction regarding AGW has been false or incorrect......I choose to ignore future climate alarmist claims.

 

[Sidewalking]

To quote the article in all of its conspiracy theory glory, "Scientists are co-opted and corrupted by politicians and bureaucracies invested in advancing the narrative of “climate change” in order to further centralize political power and control." Sorry, I have a really hard time accepting that scientists on every continent on the globe that study global warming are bought and paid for by politicians. This supposed article is on par with the usual nonsense that Brietbart publishs.

Any idea what percentage of them are funded by government grants? The number might surprise you if you are willing to look. What drives the grants? Alarm over the possibility of disastrous AGW. How much money would continue to flow if that hysteria was debunked? Power per se may not be what drives the corrupt science. But it is quite normal to expect money to drive it. So where does the politics of this come in? From leftists politicians who wish to cash in on the AGW hysteria by controlling the economy with regulations. It's so simple it's kind of depressing so few can see this.

 

[TampaBuzz]

LMAO. Since every model and every climate prediction regarding AGW has been false or incorrect......I choose to ignore future climate alarmist claims.

I don't know what information you read that suggests that "every" model/prediction is wrong, but the reality is that it doesn't really matter what you think. The facts are this: Sea levels are rising more quickly now that they have in the past, and coastal communities all over this great country are spending gobs and gobs of tax payer money (much of it federal funds) to adapt.

We can argue about the "cause" (man-made vs. naturally occurring) of sea level rise all we want, but that is ultimately a waste of time won't change anything. Maybe, just maybe, we should take our collective heads out of the sand and try implementing some mitigation strategies in conjunction with adaptation strategies. Mitigation will be a lot less expensive and provide time to develop better (i.e. less expensive) strategies to adapt. I would also be willing to bet that there are some amazing economic opportunities associated with mitigation that this great country is missing.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I don't know what information you read that suggests that "every" model/prediction is wrong, but the reality is that it doesn't really matter what you think. The facts are this: Sea levels are rising more quickly now that they have in the past, and coastal communities all over this great country are spending gobs and gobs of tax payer money (much of it federal funds) to adapt.

We can argue about the "cause" (man-made vs. naturally occurring) of sea level rise all we want, but that is ultimately a waste of time won't change anything. Maybe, just maybe, we should take our collective heads out of the sand and try implementing some mitigation strategies in conjunction with adaptation strategies. Mitigation will be a lot less expensive and provide time to develop better (i.e. less expensive) strategies to adapt. I would also be willing to bet that there are some amazing economic opportunities associated with mitigation that this great country is missing.

If we hit the targets the international scientific community recommends, we'll shave a fraction of a degree. Not worth it. And in the southeast for example, even if humans didn't affect the climate one bit, we'd still be sinking a couple inches a decade. Governments shouldn't spend money to fix unfixable problems. Don't live on the coast in areas that are sinking or vulnerable unless you can afford to. Venice has sank 5 feet in the last 500 years. At some point they need to just move unless they want to live in Water World. If automobiles disappeared, Venice would keep sinking and sea level would keep rising.

 

[TampaBuzz]

Any idea what percentage of them are funded by government grants? The number might surprise you if you are willing to look. What drives the grants? Alarm over the possibility of disastrous AGW. How much money would continue to flow if that hysteria was debunked? Power per se may not be what drives the corrupt science. But it is quite normal to expect money to drive it. So where does the politics of this come in? From leftists politicians who wish to cash in on the AGW hysteria by controlling the economy with regulations. It's so simple it's kind of depressing so few can see this.

You have got to be kidding!!! Do you seriously believe that every scientist in every country in the world is falsifying data to support AGW just to keep money flowing? You must have a very poor opinion of scientists and engineers. Dadgum man, most of us probably work for government agencies in some way shape or form as consultants or employees....are you suggesting that we all falsify data to come to a pre-determined outcome? Do you want to come down to Key Largo and explain to all those homeowners that the sea water that has been sitting in their roads for 3+ months was just an illusion? If I schedule that meeting will you come down and explain your truth of AGW to the homeowners? I can just see it, you stand up in front of the crowd and tell them, "Everything is fine...the sea level is not rising and all those scientists are liars". Those good folks would run you out of town on a rail.

By the way sir...you may also want to ask who is funding the "anti-AGW" studies. Is it possible that those are funded by the coal, oil, automotive, etc. industries that have the most to lose in the transition to renewables?