|Image Replies||0 ()|
|Lifetime||73d 17h 47m 14s|
>James Wilcox IV, a 28-year-old Army veteran, lives in Tacoma, Washington, as he wraps up his undergraduate degree in history at the University of Washington. His father is a fourth-term Washington state legislator, and his family has owned a farm since 1909, which today specializes in cage-free, organic eggs. According to his friends, Wilcox enjoys debating politics, and he describes himself as a moderate Republican.
>Wilcox rates himself as “concerned” on Global Warming’s Six Americas, and of his fellow Republicans, he says, “I could certainly wish that more Republican politicians were willing to be scientifically literate.”
>Wilcox has company; 31% of American Republicans agree that humans are a major driver of climate change, according to public opinion research by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, which publishes this site.
>While it’s tempting to stereotype one’s political opponents, Wilcox is an example of those who present an opportunity to galvanize bipartisan agreement on climate change. Extreme voices often grab headlines and stoke social media wars, but productive conversations take place more quietly, allowing a glimmer of optimism amid our seemingly intractably partisan politics.
>>Wilcox has company; 31% of American Republicans agree that humans are a major driver of climate change,
And? I often see people putting stats about acknowledging climate change, and then act as though this means there's an automatic response. They don't cite stats on Luke-warmers, or what ought to be done. How many of those 98% think that the effects of climate change will be catastrophic? How many think it will minor, and how many talk about the trade offs, the pros and cons of climate change? A lot of Republicans can say they don't believe in climate change, because of the assumptions tied to the question.
>A lot of Republicans can say they don't believe in climate change, because of the assumptions tied to the question.
Sounds like weak excuses for sticking their heads in the sand.
To be honest I find the American right wing quite disgusting these days.
Conservative is the last word I would use to describe them.
How many democrats take the stat about the amount of climate scientists who believe that man made climate change is happening, and then use that to immediately justify carbon taxes, Instead of the costs and benefits of climate change. Or whether or not the changes are not positive or negative
At least they agree there is climate change. Take your victories where you can. Instead of bickering about causes, why not focus on solutions? You may not get them to say we caused it, but so long as they say it exists we should be able to work together on a solution. Stop being so divisionary and collaborate for once.
Get over it. Work with those you can. Pitch the idea of making a carbon scrubber industry which doesn't interfere with coal mining and I am sure you will perk a few ears.
I don't necessarily believe that they don't accept that it is happening, just that their constituents may rely on industry that the proposed actions are inherently detrimental. In that case, any support for actions against the status quo will be akin to suicide. Give them options to support green solutions which don't harm their constituents and I believe a majority will come around.
>science is hard
>make it easier to understand with global warming, cause who doesn't understand being warm?
>"But snow??? Science is fake!!!"
>clarify then with climate change
>"But words mean things??? And you changed them???? Science is fake!!!"
Jesus would believe in science just to piss off Republicans.
Source: am jesus
>Instead of the costs and benefits of climate change
>Sure, hundreds of millions of people living below sea level will have their homes destroyed and half the planet will become uninhabitable, but just think of all the resources in Antarctica!
Climatologists actually hate him for this. It's less his fault than the media talking heads and climate deniers who fixate on him, but his braindead movie probably set the public dialogue on climate change back decades. It really might have been just another evolution type situation, where hicks refuse to teach it in their classrooms but it's still acknowledged as fact, instead the sitting President refuses to listen to scientists and people support him in this.
>nobody cares about al gore
The problem is he had/has one of the most widely publicised global warming video. As much as experts may hate how inaccurate the claims are, they are still viewed as fact by the large percentage of the population that don't keep up with the current literature.
I'm not exactly a fan but can't bring myself to despise him totally for his claims, mis-representation of science etc - yeah, it's all fuel for deniers but they were going to deny it anyway, likely on ideological grounds, and he did bring the issue into mainstream discourse.
Read somewhere that climate change and it's denial or acceptance was the biggest indicator of political stance otherwise - clearly it's been framed as a partisan issue, and that's the real problem here...
So big deal, career politician spouts bullshit to back up his position - right now you've got the potus claiming that the ice caps are at a "record level" so same old, you know ?
The information is pretty irrefutable if you avoid the politics though, just get it out there and it will have an effect...
>Sure, hundreds of millions of people living below sea level will have their homes destroyed and half the planet will become uninhabitable,
Really, seems like the evidence hasn't supported this. Didn't Al Gore say that the 9/11 memorial would be underwater by now?
>Really, seems like the evidence hasn't supported this
Sea levels have been rising consistently and a good chunk of northern Europe is below sea level, but I guess your lack of concern just shows how much you right-wingers really care about "white people".
More importantly, glaciers have been shrinking and once they're gone that means many major rivers across the planet will dry up, turning huge swathes of land into barren wasteland or desert.
There's also plenty of other serious effects to take into condition, such as increased frequency of extreme weather events and vast amounts of sea life dying off which people rely on for food.
Even if you choose to stick your head in the sand on the issue of climate change, we should be working to reduce pollution in general anyway and to reduce dependence on fossil fuels due to their limited nature.
>hurr durr Al Gore
He's not a scientist and the only people who give a shit about him are people like you who are more worried about imagined boogiemen than real issues. Pretty much any climate scientist in every country on Earth who isn't on the payroll of a fossil fuel company agrees that this is something we need to address ASAP
That's what really gets me, even ignoring "fucking liberals" climate change shit, not using fossil fuels is still the right call. What's the problem, we won't be dying from breathing the air like China and apparently Phoenix? The horror, damn liberals give a shit about other people!
thats why the rest of the world agrees that america deliberately stupified its people to drain them of their money and energy. also a friendly reminder that oil companies hand in hand with your government allow fracking knowing that it will fuck up people in a very short time in various ways.
>And other fairy tales used to open the window of insanity further into the norm
This is worse than outright denying climate change science. At least that level of delusion is transparent enough that even most idiots can see through it.
cheapest version of that idea i can think of would be scattering a lot of titanium dioxide in space, but that would be a last resort option.
true. but keep in mind the poles only get glancing light anyway, the closer to the equator you are the more valuable your painting stuff white contribution is: think of every square meter as a solar oven, black is on, white is off, latitude on the globe determines how powerful the oven.
think of all the square meters of road and parking lot that are set to on and how that needs to be balanced with stuff that is off (painted white)
I would happily see myself in misery to see you liberals fail. I do not want to see America become a dictatorship, but if it means making sure "enlightened" minds such as yourself never have a voice in this country again, I think it would be a reasonable trade. Whatever the alternatives, liberals are always worse. The liberal cathedral dealt a serious wound to the human race when they overthrew crown and mitre during the age of reason and forced science into being the religion of the land.
I am a fervent believer that climate change is real and is being fueled by humans and wish to convince more people that science is not an opinion, but fact. I fucking hate Al Gore for being such a scaremongerer, having ties to make money from it, and generally being a dopey mushmouthed hard left winger with zero charisma. He is the single largest reason climate change became a bipartisan issue. Idiot Republicans see a Democrat push something and being seedy, they push back as revenge. Now scientific consensus is being challenged by retards who are metaphorically rooting for their sports team through thick and thin without reality being a factor.
>Climate "science" is a pseudo science not based on the scientific method.
true enough, and even if it was, scientists have forgotten that skepticism is essential in science. We should be skeptical of all evidence. And as any true scientist knows, being skeptical means you can't know nuthin. The responsible thing to do is accept that no matter how much evidence exists for an idea, we all need to remember what matters at the end of the day isn't research, data, sea levels, but whether or not we want to admit we were wrong.
The problem with Republicans, who are one of the only major political party in the world who are Climate Change deniers. Is because they are by the billionares who operate the petro fuel and dirty power industries like the Koch brothers.
They're morally bankrupt and will tow whatever line they need to get money for the next election and a high paying job once they leave office.
"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia"
I guess NASA are just a bunch of propaganda pushers. It's not like they landed on the fucking moon and deal in rocket science.
But climate science is a LIE. Milkanovitch cycles? More like milking bitch cycles haha.
I'm also an AIDS denialist, vitalist and am against those disgusting autism causing vaccinations because I'm an edgy contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian.
>evidence doesn't matter, you just need a majority of a group of scientists to vote it true. just ask the climateshills
The "climateshills" provide evidence of their position all the time. Start with the IPCC papers. That's "evidence." Against it, and the vast majority of all scientific papers published, you present literally nothing.
Was actually asking for someone to outline the science that debunks AGW and all the work done by scientists, climatologists, NASA, etc...
I mean come the fuck on, if you're going to claim AGW is bullshit at least post something to back that up you lazy shilling cunts.
>north america will be covered in ice
>lets call it global cooling
>oh shit, that didn't happen
>oh, wait, let's say its because of global warming
>but what if that proves fake as well?
>we'll call it climate change. because that's vague as shit.
Admittedly I don't remember an ice age being the agreed upon situation, but honestly I only started caring a few years ago.
Also, unlike certain people, science is progress. Being wrong in the past doesn't invalidate the future or present. That's childish to think like such. All it means is we're smarter now than we were before.
But I understand if you can't fathom something like "learning".
Even if they don't work, even if climate change is a literal space reptile mythos, even if your sick wasn't 2 inches, what's actually the reason to not do them?
"Oh no, we won't be Hong Kong with constant sickness from breathing shitty air! Our grandchildren might see trees still! The world won't suck to live in!"
Like, what? How pathetic one must be to not side with these hippy policies just because "it's warm in January?? Get fucked, libtards!"
Is that it? You'll threaten people who don't even exist? As for a living standards go. They increase when you use fossil fuels. So the same to you, will your children be happy living in the iron ages? Will you be able to maintain your standard of living without an industrial output measured in watts instead of bushels of grain? Do you intend to let the forests get logged into oblivion to fuel wooden ships instead of using steel and coal?
...no, actually living standards don't increase from using fossil fuels. Go check out China, unless something changed from last August last I was there. Correlation doesn't imply causation. It's also not the only, or even the cheapest fuel source anymore, do you live under a rock by any chance?
That's not what I said, faggot. In fact, unlike you, I'm fully aware we're currently living in an ice age. But that's not what the claim was. The claim, by your side of the spectrum, was that "nort america will be covered in ice by the year 2000." Didn't happen, did it, faggot? Nope. But now we're supposed to blindly 'listen and believe' those same government funded "climate scientists?" Yeah, no. I'm not some brain damaged liberal faggot.
>he thinks 'global cooling' was made up for this argument
Are... are you retarded?
>The claim, by your side of the spectrum, was that "nort america will be covered in ice by the year 2000."
Who the made that claim, and why do you think they're on "our side of the spectrum"?
Be specific, stop throwing around vague claims.
>he thinks 'global cooling' was made up for this argument
No, I don't think that. But global cooling was never a widely-held view among scientists; It was a minor view held be a small number of climatologists during the 70's.
>>A lot of Republicans can say they don't believe in climate change, because of the assumptions tied to the question.
>Sounds like weak excuses for sticking their heads in the sand.
if democrats actually cared about climate change they would work on making better appeals to right wingers to convince them instead of just calling them retards.
We are drawing from the same knowledge base as you. If a Democrat and a Republican are told "Scientists are 95% sure that climate change is real and primarily caused by humans," the Democrat assumes that this means global warming is real and should be addressed, while the Republican assumes that this means that global warming is not caused by humans and should not be addressed. If someone is provided with evidence, and assumes the exact opposite of what that evidence implies, they're beyond help. We can't provide any stronger evidence than what we've already been provided, all that's left is to scratch our heads at how so many people can be so fucking stupid.
>if democrats actually cared about climate change they would work on making better appeals to right wingers to convince them
They tried. Many, many, times.
That's why people are so quick which to call republican views on climatology "denialist" and politically motivated - because it's clear by noww that we could present all the evidence in the world and they'll just put their fingers in their ears.
global whatever was going to happen regardless of people. it just so happens we made it speed up. the real issue should be overpopulation and ending pollution which NO ONE wants to do. people are spending too much time worrying about money and muh 86 genders.
Its 97%. And its a misconception that they are "97% sure. Its actually 97% agree. Not that each scientist is 97% sure. Its 97% agree. So 3% of scientists don't agree. And we KNOW as a FACT that some people are paid to disagree and introduce uncertainty. So there isn't really any member of the reputable scientists that think it isn't real.
>Being skeptical is a bad thing
Sorry that I don't immediately believe everything that politicians spit out. Science is a process of trial and error and is no longer science of you push it as a fact regardless of skepticism. I've read some of the charts and studies regarding man-made green house gases and the results are inconclusive at best since there are a lot of factors in play, some of which we probably aren't aware of. The government has also pushed environmental fear mongering campaigns in this past that are no longer known of today.
Either way, politicians sell lies and your rights.
>Being skeptical is a bad thing
Being sceptical means examining the evidence and drawing your conclusions from it. Blind denial of facts that don't fit with your political views isn't scepticism.
>Sorry that I don't immediately believe everything that politicians spit out.
Climatologists aren't politicians. And ignoring scientists because some politicians listen to them is retarded.
>Science is a process of trial and error and is no longer science of you push it as a fact regardless of skepticism.
What the fuck does that even mean? Pure word salad.
>Ive read some of the charts and studies regarding man-made green house gases and the results are inconclusive at best
Care to be more specific than "some of the charts and studies"? Because the infographs /pol/ makes in paint don't really count.
>there are a lot of factors in play, some of which we probably aren't aware of.
Climatologists have more than enough understanding of how the climate works to say that humans are the primary driver of climate change. The things they don't understand are details, not the big picture.
>What the fuck does that even mean? Pure word salad.
Top FBI cryptologist here, he's saying that science is based on trial and error and if a hypothesis is pushed as a fact without sufficient research then it loses most of its credibility regardless of how foolish skeptics of it may seem.
Ultimately, we can never scientifically (dis)prove these planet-wide issues like this as there simply isn't another earth to test this one against.
But dumbasses think being fundamentally unable to scientifically proven something means it must be scientifically false. Which isn't what it means at all, but here we are.
Thanks for the correction. I feel like it's pretty damn convincing either way though. I've never been disappointed to have gotten a 97% on a test. For 20 years or so, nearly every person who spends their career putting theories through empirical testing has agreed that global warming is real, caused by humans, and a big fucking deal. There is going to be blood on the hands of the 69% of Republicans who don't believe in it, because it's downright irresponsible to cling to such a flimsy argument at the cost of real human lives.
Stop pretending to be me. I'm the real Top FBI cryptologist.
He's right though, it's absurd to think that we can predict global warming. We have well documented how carbon dioxide increases the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, causing it to retain more heat. Therefore we know that this increased heat that the world is experiencing is not caused by the retention of heat that isn't happening and isn't caused by the carbon dioxide that we're not releasing. Besides, it's cold outside.
The rest of your arguments are no better. Despite the epidemic of false science you all still believe that none of the data you are being handed is manipulated, despite repeated proofs of just that. There is no reliable certainty that the climate is changing in any significant way at all, much less that human carbon output has to do with it. Rather, there is strong evidence elsewhere. You're a mental midget and only know what you see on tv and read in 8th-grade level articles, but sure, keep pretending and patting yourself on the back for being morally righteous and superior. Like we don't also have a sense of self-preservation you fucking dipstick.
Sure thing soyboy, I'm SURE you were an expert when you were 9 years old and know all about it. It's totally NOT THE CASE that you only got introduced to the topic by Al Gore and decided maybe you could get laid by being on the bleeding edge or some shit.
Climate change hysteria dates back decades, and it peaked in the late 1980's. By the late 1990's the runaway-greenhosue models were proven to be incorrect. Carbon, in any quantity, has a maximum heating effect of 2c in a closed environment that in no way resembles our dynamic atmosphere with myriad adjustment systems. The ensuing 20 years have done nothing to change this evidence. For anyone familiar with the climate change arguments in 1992 it is OBVIOUS that they have failed to pan out. You worry about this at your own peril. There is freedom on the other side, when you realize you were hoodwinked and that it's not a problem at all. For the record I love trees and shit and hate pollution, but I also hate being late to and stupid people acting smart. You're not smart, you're wrong. How embarrassing for you.
>Despite the epidemic of false science you all still believe that none of the data you are being handed is manipulated, despite repeated proofs of just that.
Isn't it strange that you'll say that, but you won't post any of that proof?
>There is no reliable certainty that the climate is changing in any significant way at all
The rapid rise in temperatures we're seeing right now is incredibly abnormal. The Earth doesn't warm by a degree over a century for no reason.
>much less that human carbon output has to do with it.
Isotope balance. δ13C and δ14C are dropping, which points to burning fossil fuels as a carbon source.
>Rather, there is strong evidence elsewhere.
...but you can't be bothered posting it.
>Climate change hysteria ... peaked in the late 1980's.
What makes you think that?
>By the late 1990's the runaway-greenhosue models were proven to be incorrect.
"Runaway" models have never been popular.
>Carbon, in any quantity, has a maximum heating effect of 2c in a closed environment
What the fuck? Who told you that?
The greenhouse effect from CO2 is already responsible for way more than +2C.
> For anyone familiar with the climate change arguments in 1992 it is OBVIOUS that they have failed to pan out.
I'm looking through the 1992 IPCC supplement to AR1, and there's nothing that looks badly off to me. They give a climate sensitive range of 1.5C to 4.5C per CO2 doubling, and climatologists are currently (slowly) converging on a value of about 3C. They predicted 0.3C warming per decade compared to our observed 0.2C, but explicitly were't considering the cooling effect by sulphate aerosols, which we now know is about -1/3 of the forcing from CO2.
What exactly didn't pan out?
>when you realize you were hoodwinked
What makes you so sure it's me who was "hoodwinked"?
I don't understand how rightfags can still want climate change. Do you want literally hundreds of millions of chinks to flood your country so it looks like Vancouver? Or how about another hundered million Indians shitting in the Mississippi or Danube?
No side wins. If you think the influx of brown people is bad now, altfriends, you're going to see a mass exodus to higher, colder ground.
if you guys weren't busy throwing open the gates it wouldn't even be an issue
but if you really want to make the argument that climate change will flood the first world with subhumans, i would at least agree with you. unfortunately you won't let us actually do anything about it now, and probably won't in the future either.
it's just a shame that you won't see reason on half the things you should, and force me not to see reason on half the things i should. but what can be done really anyway
Here's all this evidence showing that CO2 has historically been correlated with warmer climates, here are the measurements showing the industrial revolution sent CO2 levels skyrocketing, and here are the measurements showing that the Earth is warming up just like we predicted. These facts are so solid, that 97% of us who spend their lifetimes gathering and analyzing evidence are convinced that global warming is real, caused by humans, and a big fucking problem.
There is no evidence because there is no global warming. There was evidence for something completely false though.
>if democrats actually cared about climate change they would work on making better appeals to right wingers
What, i have to sugar coat reality so some fucking cuck doesn't get triggered by much commie hippie plot ? I have to court those on the right and implore them to think about their kids future, the fate of the oceans, food supplies, and societal stability because these are things that matter to us all ? Fuck that, and fuck the stubborn insistence on clinging to partisan politics above all else, the endless bullshit conspiracies about liberal elites or grant hungry climatologists - I'm done trying to convince anyone capable of such ridiculously stubborn and stupid posturing.
How about those on the right try to think outside the box for a fucking change ? Check that coockie cutter, leftist slagging ideology at the door, query the roots of AGW denial propaganda, and connect the dots - maybe they'll see who's really profiting from this, how corporate interests are subverting the future and fucking us all over.
>To be honest I find the American right wing quite disgusting these days.
And I find the left wing, regardless of country, to be trash. You've abandoned core concepts like supply and demand, or pattern recognition, because they are 'problematic' to your multiracial utopian world view.
>wants to raise taxes on the wealthy
>wants to import every third worlder
>wants to massively expand the welfare state
HURR DURR IM A LEFTIST WHO THINKS LOGIC IS WHITE SUPREMACY AND REEEEEE NAZI REEEEE
>Literally nothing but strawmen
And there's the problem with American discourse. The left is fighting the worst version of the right, the right is fighting an imagined version of the left, and the rest of the country wants to do nothing if it means avoiding the headache.
I don't know if you realize, but every great leap in arts, maths, weapons, transportation, etc. happens during times when rich are rightfully taxed, welfare is expanded, and as a byproduct of both other people want to be part of it.
But that's logic and reason. Evidently you failed both.
>fighting the worst version of the right
It's true, but unfortunately, the worst version of the right is the most mobilized. A conservative with an actual brain in their head like John Kasich will realize simple things such as if 98% of scientists say we're causing global warming, that probably means we're causing global warming and we should stop.
But we live in a world where Donald Trump won the Republican primary because what the most Republicans could agree on is that Mexicans are rapists and need to be stopped.
Like how housing was institutionally segregated through the 1960s, and how that robbed the schools that blacks went to of funding, and how white dudes are screaming on the internet how blacks are evil because they're not on equal economic footing a generation after they were repressed in all areas of society? Yeah, I recognize a pattern of shitheads who have nothing better to take pride in than what they were born with. And please find me a single democrat who wants to import every third worlder.
>8% of CO2 is manmade.
That's a lot, given how large the total impact of the greenhouse effect is on Earth.
>If we produced 12 times as much, the temperature would go up ~1 degree centigrade.
That sounds like complete bullshit.
>To sell it better, you have to be good at listening first.
What makes you think we haven't been listening? The deniers have no common hypothesis or ideas, and their arguments boils down to a mixture of conspiracy theories and misunderstanding basic science.
>I don't get why there is an incessant need "prove" (human) climate change and look down on others for it.
Because it's both controversial and incredibly important.
>There IS something everyone can agree on that is a bigger problem, pollution.
Solving problems requires you to be specific about what particular problem you're solving and how. Getting everyone to agree "pollution is bad" is meaningless if we still disagree on what pollution is, how bad it is, and what should be done about it.
The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.
Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse". 19 October 2009
Capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, the Prince of Wales has warned in a grandstand speech which set out his concerns for the future of the planet.
The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world.
And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the "age of convenience" was over.
The Prince, who has spoken passionately about the environment before, said that if the world failed to heed his warnings then we all faced the "nightmare that for so many of us now looms on the horizon". Wednesday 8 July 2009
nment/green-living/just-96-months-t o-save-world-says-prince-charles-17 38049.html#
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added. Jan 17 2009
VALENCIA, Spain — The blunt and alarming final report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released here by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, may well underplay the problem of climate change, many experts and even the report's authors admit.
The report describes the evidence for human-induced climate change as "unequivocal." The rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere thus far will result in an average rise in sea levels of up to 4.6 feet, or 1.4 meters, it concluded.
The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late," Pachauri said. "What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."
He said that since the IPCC began work on its current report five years ago, scientists have recorded "much stronger trends in climate change," like a recent melting of polar ice that had not been predicted. "That means you better start with intervention much earlier."
"If you look at the scientific knowledge things do seem to be getting progressively worse," Pachauri said later in an interview. "So you'd better start with the interventions even earlier. Now."
The effects will be greatest in the developing world. Even without the more alarming data, the report says inaction could leave island states submerged, African crop yields down by 50 percent, and cause a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product. NOV. 18, 2007
That is a dumb question.
PM Gordon Brown 50 days 19 October 2009 = dec 9 2009
Prince of Wales 96 months 8 july 2009 = 8 july 2017
Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen four years Jan 17 2009 = Jan 17 2013
IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri = 2012
Do you agree that we have passed our last chance to save the planet in 2009, 2012, 2013, and 2017?
The last two sources were two of the leading climate scientists in the WORLD. Do you disagree with them? How dare you sir.
HOW VERY FUCKING DARE YOU.
>That is a dumb question.
It's really not. You seem to have a very poor understanding of the subject, and are confusing a bunch of different claims from different people.
>Prince of Wales
Who gives a fuck?
>Jim Hansen four years Jan 17 2009 = Jan 17 2013
James Hansen. At least get his name right.
If you bothered to read the interview in your own link, you would have seen that at no point did he bring up "the end of the world".
The "four years" was the duration until the next Presidential election, not Armageddon.
>Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days
...until the Kyto treaty expired.
>IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri = 2012
What, specifically did he say that was wrong? "The events leading up to 2012 will have a large impact in the future" does not mean "fire and brimstone will come raining down on the first of January".
>The last two sources were two of the leading climate scientists in the WORLD. Do you disagree with them? How dare you sir.
You could have at least bothered to read what they actually said.
I honestly can't tell if you're being wilfully deceptive, or your reading comprehension is so poor you're just substituting what you think "alarmists" should be saying for the actual text.
>Millions will die, except that they won't, because you don't understand what we are saying.
>UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves
>brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse
(at the link) >studies of past variations in climate indicate that a far more likely figure for sea-level rise will be about 1.4 metres, enough to cause devastating flooding of many of the world's major cities and of low-lying areas of Holland, Bangladesh and other nations
>Even without the more alarming data, the report says inaction could leave island states submerged, African crop yields down by 50 percent, and cause a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product
What is fire and brimstone, if not this?
>What is fire and brimstone, if not this?
The consequences of AGW aren't a single event of a given size which will suddenly show up. It's a slow, sliding scale of harm and consequences. A lot of the harm that people in the early-to-mid 2000's said we "absolutely must avoid" is now basically guaranteed to occur over the rest of the century, and the harm we "absolutely must avoid" now is more serious again. Just because you can't see happen out your window doesn't mean things aren't getting worse.
Just weighing in but I'm typically seen as a republican though I usually feel moderate on most positions. I'm surrounded by republican friends and it's really rough. They're all educated but not in hard sciences. I'm a pathologists and spend most of my free time studying astronomy/climate change and it's so fucking annoying to have to explain this shit to them all the time.
The U.S. must take Monroe Doctrine now.
The U.S. must withdraw American Forces from all Foreign Countries now.
Stop America's doing its all wars now!
I love American99% and the U.S.
China, Germany and Japan must loosen Germany's, Japan's and China's monetary policies now!
China, Germany and Japan must stimulate Germany's, Japan's and China's domestic demands now!
Japan and Germany must issue a lot of construction bond now!
Japan and Germany must reduce Germany's, Japan's and China's taxes now!
The U.S. must tighten its monetary policy now!
As a result, Dollar value will rise!
The U.S. will have trade surplus!
Japan and Germany are evil empires.
Islamists' true enemies are Japan, Germany, FRB, Top1%, Wall Street, American Military Industry and DOD!
Japan is the country which has been promoting Globalization!!!
American Revolutionary War!
We American 99% have the 2nd amendment!
American Revolutionary War!
Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and Japanese-bureaucrats are the main largest promoters of FTA.
Wall-Street, American-top1%, American-Military-Industry are colluding with Japan and Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).
>the 70's when the climate alarmists were pushing the second coming of the ice age
Global cooling was never the majority view among climatologists.
>switched to global warming, then global climate change.
That never happened. The terms "global warming" and "climate change" have been used interchangeably (in non-technical contexts) for as long as there's been any public discussion of the topic.
We're currentely in a brief interglacial period between much more severe ice ages, where the earth is still relatively cool. When the Earth isn't in ice ages, like during the Mesozoic or early Cenozoic, there aren't even ice caps at the poles or any glaciers to speak of.
Can anyone tell me why the melting ice is a problem more land for producing food. If anyone was serious about globule warming they would not build, or rebuild with in ten miles from the coast now that would save life's and infrastructure from damage.
It takes a lot of time and money to turn "any" land into food production land, and even then we already produce more than enough food we could need. The issue there is logistics, getting food to those locations that don't have decent enough roads or ports and such.
Generally, yes, people can be against coast building. I remember some more hippy friends talking about "don't walk on the dunes".
>You might as well admit would rather watch the world die than listen to a conservative.
>And I think that's hilarious.
Oh, come now - i'll listen to a conservative any day but if he's going to start spouting denier bullshit then why the fuck bother ? if one can still be a denier when presented with all the documentation that NASA, climatologists, and scientists worldwide have been producing for the last 30 years, then there's clearly little I can say that will change their minds; Fuck 'em.
Also, fuck you for being such a fucking dullard and making such a dumb assumption - it's not some obscure and finely nuanced opinion I'm offering up here, it's pretty fucking basic and reasonable in terms of discourse....
could it be our weather take longer than a generation or two to change but when it does it usualy quick. theres recorded history of a 5 year winter weather then 13 years of summer. but back then they just burned people and hoped for the best. oh wait a minute.
page took 0.0631 seconds to execute