Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Joe Miner]

5 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Both, unfortunately, since we can’t decouple our environment from the rest of the world. Implement public policy changes for ourselves, while using diplomacy and different forms of economic pressure policies for everyone else. China is still in the Paris Agreement and will want to be a cooperative international economic player moving forward beyond COVID-19 (hopefully…because it is in their own economic interests to be that way). CCP is also positioned very favorably for all these nascent renewable energy industries because of their country’s own rich transition metal oxide natural resources, as well as the ones they’ve been eyeing in Africa.

 

 

 

Thanks for this reply. A few comments:

 

1. Regarding a clearly defined problem and solution: You’ve listed 7 questions. Do you want me to answer them in detail here? Or were they more rhetorical? Questions 3, 5, and 7 are very well-defined by the science (quick source: NASA GISS site). Questions 1, 2, and 4 are defined well enough (quick source: Paris Climate Agreement PDF documents) with a converging consensus, but there is still a range of opinions that vary somewhat by country. Question 6 is still open-ended with the “Green New Deal” umbrella term for the potpourri of solutions, but the United States is one of the few remaining countries in the world with a major political party still stuck debating the worthiness of the other 6 questions first. I’d be happy to answer them in detail later if open-minded people want to read them, but it’s not worth my time if they will be laughed at because they’re coming from a “pseudo scientist” perceived as capable of reading and regurgitating but incapable of understanding and questioning. I’ve already defined the criteria I’m looking for in order to break off from the mainstream scientific consensus: dissenting research papers or research summary articles from properly credentialed climatologists that I could examine. What would be your evidence criteria in order to join my side (a question directed at any anthropogenic climate change skeptic reading this)?

 

2. On the models and data: I’ve never argued that all the data is known. Likewise with the modeling assumptions and unknown variables. What I did argue was that enough of the data and modeling assumptions are known to make satisfactorily accurate climate predictions. We can have a discussion on what constitutes “satisfactorily accurate.” Future predictions that track all data metrics within 2.5% deviation at 100% consistency? Have you defined your own computational model accuracy expectations at which scientific legitimacy can then be bestowed? It seems absurd and unproductive to me to demand climate model perfectionism before political action is to be taken. It would probably be more productive to take up an accuracy debate with credible climatologists (Zeke Hausfather would be a pretty good start).

 

3. On government solutions: I’m currently looking into what’s specifically working and what’s specifically not with all the various Green New Deal implementations in the EU, especially in Germany right now. All ideas should be on the table, anyway, given the pressing need to overhaul our dilapidated national civil infrastructure. I just want to reiterate that I would be unhappy pushing Green New Deal legislation without careful deliberation beforehand and without appropriate safeguards. I like to think that we share similarly deep concerns for government overreaches of power, government choosing economic winners and losers, and government waste and inefficiencies that increase with government program size. Where I may possibly differ from others here is my essentially equal concern for corporate power left unchecked in capitalist systems (the fossil fuel industries in this case). I’m mostly referring to the many forms of crony capitalism: shirking environmental stewardship responsibilities via deregulatory pollution law measures, price manipulation policies, foreign policy in places like the Middle East and Venezuela, and exploiting such an overly expansive U.S. transportation grid already built to heavily favor fossil fuel consumption. But even in a completely uncorrupted and unfettered capitalist system, I fully and very cynically expect private tech industries to move on their own volition without proper regard to long-term crises involving mutually shared risk (i.e. man-made climate change).

 

Last comment and I'm out.

 

Your full faith is in the science of others. You are a true believer. Any attempt to make you question the science you defend will be met with more quotes of scripture and verse from said science.

 

The idea that you even remotely support the green new deal shines as a bright beacon of your faith.

 

Peace be with you.

[KD in CA]

5 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

China is still in the Paris Agreement and will want to be a cooperative international economic player moving forward

 

Not only that, but Iran completely gave up their desire to have nukes!   

[B-Man]

 

 

“EARTH DAY” TURNS 50. Half a century later, a look back at the forecasters who got the future wrong—and one who got it right.

 

Flashback: “Earth Day” Founder And Notorious “Unicorn Killer” Ira Einhorn Has Died In Prison At Age 79.

 

On the eve of 2011’s “Earth Day,” NBC stumbled into this headline and subhead to describe Einhorn: 

Earth Day co-founder killed, composted girlfriend. Ira Einhorn preached against Vietnam War and violence, but had dark side. 

 

 

 

. 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

EARTH DAY PREDICTIONS OF 1970. THE REASON YOU SHOULDN’T BELIEVE EARTH DAY PREDICTIONS OF 2020.

 

 

 

 

.

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

On the eve of 2011’s “Earth Day,” NBC stumbled into this headline and subhead to describe Einhorn: 

Earth Day co-founder killed, composted girlfriend. Ira Einhorn preached against Vietnam War and violence, but had dark side. 

 

Composting your murder victims? Now that's caring for the environment!

[/dev/null]

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Composting your murder victims? Now that's caring for the environment!

 

Reminds me of that scene from the end of Fargo

[B-Man]

 

[Wacka]

2 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

Reminds me of that scene from the end of Fargo

He didn't compost her. He stuffed her in a footlocker and okayed it ib the closet of his apartment. The neighbor called the super because because of age smell coming from his apartment.  When the cops found her, he claimed he didn't know how she got there. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

18 hours ago, B-Man said:

EARTH DAY PREDICTIONS OF 1970. THE REASON YOU SHOULDN’T BELIEVE EARTH DAY PREDICTIONS OF 2020.

 

Ok, well I get the point being made here: shockingly, it is possible for scientists to be incorrect. But this particular article seems to be filled with selection bias, no? 15 listed incorrect predictions from random people in 1970, but no reference to any correct predictions made by scientists within the past 50 years. 4 of the wildest quotes came from one singular fella named Kenneth Watt. I don’t know what the deal was with this guy. Others were vague predictions of doom and gloom too general to even be considered “testable.” Some of these predictions didn’t come from qualified scientists. Others referenced global food shortages and pollution, problems which still could have conceivably come true were it not for agricultural innovations and effective environmental regulations achieved throughout the 70’ and 80’s.

 

On 4/18/2020 at 11:58 AM, Joe Miner said:

 

Last comment and I'm out.

 

Your full faith is in the science of others. You are a true believer. Any attempt to make you question the science you defend will be met with more quotes of scripture and verse from said science.

 

The idea that you even remotely support the green new deal shines as a bright beacon of your faith.

 

Peace be with you.

 

I am a devout “believer” in the scientific method. I believe that reason, logic, facts, and evidence will eventually overcome whatever personal biases, groupthink, and research grant influences that exist within the scientific community. If the current scientific consensus of man-made climate change is wrong, it will be made obvious and break down soon enough. But an opposing case being made is much more credible if it comes from trained scientists in the subject and not from laypeople. There are always heretical scientists out there eager to prove their colleagues wrong and make their name in science. If you provide research papers or articles for me to read from dissenting climatologists, I am more than happy to look over them and reevaluate my stance. I certainly hope I am wrong on this subject. No need for lengthy replies. Quick links will suffice.

 

As for the practical solutions side to the debate, you seem extremely bothered by the very notion that I would be open to Green New Deal solutions. If I’m placing my full faith in the religion of science, is it not possible that you are doing something similar for the “religion” of economic libertarianism? Again, no need to reply if you don’t want to do so. Just something to consider.

 

On 4/18/2020 at 7:27 AM, Bill from NYC said:

I think that you have much more faith in China to do the right thing than I do. That is easy to achieve too because I have none.

 

I hear ya, but I see no other realistic choice. Isolating China from its allies because of its fossil fuel usage seems to be our best option. In my opinion, the much easier part would be controlling the CCP via their resolute obsession for global economic hegemony. The much harder part may be getting the EU and the US on the same diplomatic page with China’s current allies, like Russia and many of the Islamic countries, whose economies are already heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Hmmm…..

[Bill from NYC]

1 hour ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

I hear ya, but I see no other realistic choice. Isolating China from its allies because of its fossil fuel usage seems to be our best option. In my opinion, the much easier part would be controlling the CCP via their resolute obsession for global economic hegemony. The much harder part may be getting the EU and the US on the same diplomatic page with China’s current allies, like Russia and many of the Islamic countries, whose economies are already heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Hmmm…..

I am not so sure if Russia and China are "allies." One would think that the lack of demand for oil is hurting Russia, but they are still a world power due to their weaponry.

 

You are young but if you read up on it, China didn't like Russia as far back as Nixon and Kissenger. Those two are said to have paved the way for our relationship with China.

 

Call me simplistic, but imo we could really hurt China by consumerism. It may sound banal but simply "buying American" would cost us a bit more initially but benefit us in the long run. I am not wanting to "punish" them, but; I resent how dependent on them that we seem to be. They were getting away with murder in terms of tariffs with previous administrations. Hopefully, Americans have had enough after this disaster, which might have been intentional. This we will never know.

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by Bill from NYC

[unbillievable]

3 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Ok, well I get the point being made here: shockingly, it is possible for scientists to be incorrect. But this particular article seems to be filled with selection bias, no? 15 listed incorrect predictions from random people in 1970, (How dare you!) ~Greta, (We only got 11 more years!) ~AOC

 

but no reference to any correct predictions made by scientists within the past 50 years. 4 of the wildest quotes came from one singular fella named Kenneth Watt. (Al Gore says hi)

 

I don’t know what the deal was with this guy. Others were vague predictions of doom and gloom too general to even be considered “testable.” Some of these predictions didn’t come from qualified scientists. (Bill Nye)

 

Others referenced global food shortages and pollution, problems which still could have conceivably come true were it not for agricultural innovations and effective environmental regulations achieved throughout the 70’ and 80’s. (Innovation stopped being a thing in the 90's?)

 

So you agree that predictions in the 70's are just as reliable as now...

[3rdnlng]

15 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

So you agree that predictions in the 70's are just as reliable as now...

  3 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Ok, well I get the point being made here: shockingly, it is possible for scientists to be incorrect. But this particular article seems to be filled with selection bias, no? 15 listed incorrect predictions from random people in 1970, (How dare you!) ~Greta, (We only got 11 more years!) ~AOC

 

but no reference to any correct predictions made by scientists within the past 50 years. 4 of the wildest quotes came from one singular fella named Kenneth Watt. (Al Gore says hi)

 

I don’t know what the deal was with this guy. Others were vague predictions of doom and gloom too general to even be considered “testable.” Some of these predictions didn’t come from qualified scientists. (Bill Nye)

 

Others referenced global food shortages and pollution, problems which still could have conceivably come true were it not for agricultural innovations and effective environmental regulations achieved throughout the 70’ and 80’s. (Innovation stopped being a thing in the 90's?)

Nothing really happened in the 90's. "Big Hair" consumed that decade.

[Koko78]

29 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

So you agree that predictions in the 70's are just as reliable as now...

 

Maybe. It's pretty cold outside. Global cooling is real, dammit!

[Buffalo_Gal]

Biden wins, he's going to invest a trillion dollars in the green new deal crap!
 

 

 

 

[bbb]

I've gotta say that I haven't seen Greta in quite a while and that's rather refreshing.  

[KRC]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

 

What's his opinion on gasoline-powered private planes used to fly around the world telling people to stop burning fossil fuels?

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, KRC said:

 

What's his opinion on gasoline-powered private planes used to fly around the world telling people to stop burning fossil fuels?

Our "betters" are nothing if not hypocrites.
 

[KRC]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

Our "betters" are nothing if not hypocrites.
 

 

The typical "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

[Koko78]

14 minutes ago, bbb said:

I've gotta say that I haven't seen Greta in quite a while and that's rather refreshing.  

 

She did try to claim she got the Flu Manchu a few weeks ago... even though she was never tested, diagnosed, or treated for it. She *knows* she had it though.

 

It's amazing that she became not only a climate expert, but also a medical expert... all while skipping high school for the past couple years.

15 minutes ago, KRC said:

 

What's his opinion on gasoline-powered private planes used to fly around the world telling people to stop burning fossil fuels?

 

Bah, everyone knows that environmentalist jet fuel is made from clean-burning unicorn farts!

[3rdnlng]

36 minutes ago, bbb said:

I've gotta say that I haven't seen Greta in quite a while and that's rather refreshing.  

Note that she disappeared about the same time as Grandma Liawatha. Sans the glasses there's quite a resemblance. At first I couldn't figure it out then I remembered that Native Americans are very closely related to the Swedish people. I think the angry persona that Greta portrays is inherited from Lizzy who got it from the Cherokee Nation. 

[bbb]

35 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

She did try to claim she got the Flu Manchu a few weeks ago... even though she was never tested, diagnosed, or treated for it. She *knows* she had it though.

 

It's amazing that she became not only a climate expert, but also a medical expert... all while skipping high school for the past couple years.

 

 

OMG - she's unreal.  Glad I missed that!  

[unbillievable]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

  3 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Ok, well I get the point being made here: shockingly, it is possible for scientists to be incorrect. But this particular article seems to be filled with selection bias, no? 15 listed incorrect predictions from random people in 1970, (How dare you!) ~Greta, (We only got 11 more years!) ~AOC

 

but no reference to any correct predictions made by scientists within the past 50 years. 4 of the wildest quotes came from one singular fella named Kenneth Watt. (Al Gore says hi)

 

I don’t know what the deal was with this guy. Others were vague predictions of doom and gloom too general to even be considered “testable.” Some of these predictions didn’t come from qualified scientists. (Bill Nye)

 

Others referenced global food shortages and pollution, problems which still could have conceivably come true were it not for agricultural innovations and effective environmental regulations achieved throughout the 70’ and 80’s. (Innovation stopped being a thing in the 90's?)

Nothing really happened in the 90's. "Big Hair" consumed that decade.

[B-Man]

 

 

SUPER GAFFE-O-MATIC ’76! 

 

Joe Biden asks Al Gore, “Is it too late to aggress the climate change?” 

 

And with gas currently under $1.50 in some areas, “Biden and Al Gore talk gleefully about making the internal combustion engine illegal. Democrats are coming for your car.”

 

 

 

 

Flashback to 2016: Joe Biden and Colin Powell drag race their ’67 and 2015 Corvettes, and NBC, which in 2007 was insisting that all of their viewers turn off their lights to fight global warming has nary a complaint.

 

 

 

 

.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Not quite all your puddles belong to us...
 

Supreme Court says Clean Water Act applies to some groundwater pollution
 

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Clean Water Act requires the federal government to regulate some groundwater pollutants that find their way into navigable waters such as oceans, rivers and streams.
 

The 6-3 opinion penned by Justice Stephen Breyer is a middle ground position that rejects the Trump administration's push for lesser regulation, but wipes away a lower court ruling which would have required more permits under the law.
 

</snip>

[Wacka]

22 hours ago, bbb said:

I've gotta say that I haven't seen Greta in quite a while and that's rather refreshing.  

Maybe she caught Cov ID.  She is profanely a veggie in mire ways than one  and most I have known  aren't in the best of health,

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/23/2020 at 11:34 AM, unbillievable said:

So you agree that predictions in the 70's are just as reliable as now...

 

No, not quite. I only agree that some people will make (sometimes laughably) inaccurate predictions and that this phenomenon is independent of the date in time. The overall quality of prediction-making from climatology experts has been getting noticeably better since 1970, as it probably should, since 50 years is a long time for a scientific subject to mature. The biggest variability seen in today’s climate change predictions may come from determining how exactly the methane trapped within the permafrost soil of the Northern Hemisphere tundra gets released. I do often roll my eyes, however, at some of the doomsday scenarios proposed. Yes, man-made climate change will make life different and more difficult in many ways for us, but it’s not going to end human civilization altogether.

 

Rest of my comments from posts:

 

1. Greta Thunberg, AOC, Al Gore, Bill Nye: I don’t get as worked up about them as others do. They serve a useful purpose, which is to raise public awareness of man-made climate change. You can make a fair argument that their sometimes outlandish, hyperbolic, and downright scientifically inaccurate claims hurt the cause overall…but the bottom line is that they are not scientific experts and should never be treated as such. I blame the mainstream media here for deifying these 4 as climate change authority figures. I also blame climate change scientists for harboring a culture of disdain toward science popularizers, which creates a knowledge void within the public that charlatans can fill. Oh yeah, and I also blame liberals in general for peddling nonsense like Russiagate and “Wuhan virus” racism shaming because then it makes it that much harder for the public to take anything else a perceived leftist says seriously.

2. Era of pollution regulations (like EPA) and agricultural innovation (like GMO’s): What I was intending to say is that the greatest rate of positive change occurred during the 70’s and 80’s. Progress spilled over into the 90’s and beyond, of course.

3. Decade of big hair: Wasn’t this more of an 80’s thing? I’m going by movies and music videos, primarily.

4. Weather versus climate: I know y’all having fun with this, but just make sure you understand the difference.

5. Biden and anything related to Green New Deal: Won’t happen with him as president. They are empty words to win votes from the far left. The fossil fuel industries have purchased both Republicans and establishment Democrats like Biden.

6. Hypocrisy of liberals: Agreed. You can’t proclaim man-made global warming is a problem and then behave in your own personal life like it’s no big deal. This is especially true for liberals who are public figures.

7. Supreme Court and Clean Water Act: It’s interesting how these kinds of arguments generally tend toward the left taking the side of public health over the economy, while vice versa with the right. The politics surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic seem to mirror this. In my not so controversial opinion, both matter and the devil is in the details. Each environmental health case needs to be treated as its own unique situation with its own unique set of factors. The rabid lefty in me can’t help but fear how many more Love Canals and Flint Michigans exist throughout the country but go unreported.

[Koko78]

5 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

1. Greta Thunberg, AOC, Al Gore, Bill Nye: I don’t get as worked up about them as others do. They serve a useful purpose, which is to raise public awareness of man-made climate change. You can make a fair argument that their sometimes outlandish, hyperbolic, and downright scientifically inaccurate claims hurt the cause overall…but the bottom line is that they are not scientific experts and should never be treated as such. I blame the mainstream media here for deifying these 4 as climate change authority figures. I also blame climate change scientists for harboring a culture of disdain toward science popularizers, which creates a knowledge void within the public that charlatans can fill.

 

I still think they'd be better served trying to promote the benefits of breathing clean air, drinking clean water, and eating food grown in clean soil, rather than the "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IN 12 YEARS!!!!!!!!eleventyone11111" histrionic crap.

[unbillievable]

I'm surprised there isn't a push to ban carbonated drinks.

[Hedge]

 

 

[Orlando Tim]

On 4/24/2020 at 4:42 PM, RealKayAdams said:

 

No, not quite. I only agree that some people will make (sometimes laughably) inaccurate predictions and that this phenomenon is independent of the date in time. The overall quality of prediction-making from climatology experts has been getting noticeably better since 1970, as it probably should, since 50 years is a long time for a scientific subject to mature. The biggest variability seen in today’s climate change predictions may come from determining how exactly the methane trapped within the permafrost soil of the Northern Hemisphere tundra gets released. I do often roll my eyes, however, at some of the doomsday scenarios proposed. Yes, man-made climate change will make life different and more difficult in many ways for us, but it’s not going to end human civilization altogether.

 

Rest of my comments from posts:

 

1. Greta Thunberg, AOC, Al Gore, Bill Nye: I don’t get as worked up about them as others do. They serve a useful purpose, which is to raise public awareness of man-made climate change. You can make a fair argument that their sometimes outlandish, hyperbolic, and downright scientifically inaccurate claims hurt the cause overall…but the bottom line is that they are not scientific experts and should never be treated as such. I blame the mainstream media here for deifying these 4 as climate change authority figures. I also blame climate change scientists for harboring a culture of disdain toward science popularizers, which creates a knowledge void within the public that charlatans can fill. Oh yeah, and I also blame liberals in general for peddling nonsense like Russiagate and “Wuhan virus” racism shaming because then it makes it that much harder for the public to take anything else a perceived leftist says seriously.

2. Era of pollution regulations (like EPA) and agricultural innovation (like GMO’s): What I was intending to say is that the greatest rate of positive change occurred during the 70’s and 80’s. Progress spilled over into the 90’s and beyond, of course.

3. Decade of big hair: Wasn’t this more of an 80’s thing? I’m going by movies and music videos, primarily.

4. Weather versus climate: I know y’all having fun with this, but just make sure you understand the difference.

5. Biden and anything related to Green New Deal: Won’t happen with him as president. They are empty words to win votes from the far left. The fossil fuel industries have purchased both Republicans and establishment Democrats like Biden.

6. Hypocrisy of liberals: Agreed. You can’t proclaim man-made global warming is a problem and then behave in your own personal life like it’s no big deal. This is especially true for liberals who are public figures.

7. Supreme Court and Clean Water Act: It’s interesting how these kinds of arguments generally tend toward the left taking the side of public health over the economy, while vice versa with the right. The politics surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic seem to mirror this. In my not so controversial opinion, both matter and the devil is in the details. Each environmental health case needs to be treated as its own unique situation with its own unique set of factors. The rabid lefty in me can’t help but fear how many more Love Canals and Flint Michigans exist throughout the country but go unreported.

The issue with Climate Change is that scientists are never present to answer hard questions and always turn to computer models. I personally know many people who went ESF and graduated with environmental science degrees from there and more than half call Greta and the like stupid and even the ones who agree humans are a major source of the warming believe we need to prep for it since we can't stop 90% of the world's population.

[3rdnlng]

13 hours ago, Hedge said:

 

 

I wonder if any of those pictures come from times a few years ago. I'm old enough to remember that there were times that you could clearly see the San Gabriel Mountains from downtown LA. In fact a few hundred years ago LA was called "The Valley of Smoke". 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

In just over 1 months time the skies are clear to see sights not seen in decades across the globe.  

 

So .... does cutting down on pollution help or not?  

[Deranged Rhino]

15 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

In just over 1 months time the skies are clear to see sights not seen in decades across the globe.  

 

So .... does cutting down on pollution help or not?  

 

Is putting more people out of work since the great depression worth it?

[Koko78]

6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Is putting more people out of work since the great depression worth it?

 

This is quite upsetting to me. We're going to wait another 15-18 years until we've only got 12 more years to live.

[SydneyBillsFan]

 

Renewable energy myth smashed, debunked, buried and cremated by....MICHAEL FRIGGIN' MOORE!! Yes, that's right....one of their own has fully exposed the world's greatest sham!!

 

You just couldn't make it up ?

 

Well worth watching, except that even after taking a bite out of their own global warming crap sandwich, they still cannot admit that global warming policy is a complete waste of time and money.

 

Grab some popcorn from your eco-microwave and enjoy!

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by SydneyBillsFan

[Orlando Tim]

9 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

In just over 1 months time the skies are clear to see sights not seen in decades across the globe.  

 

So .... does cutting down on pollution help or not?  

Cutting down on pollution is good, but seeing as most of it comes from China and other Asian countries we have no control over it. 

[B-Man]

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 4/27/2020 at 12:47 PM, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

In just over 1 months time the skies are clear to see sights not seen in decades across the globe.  

 

So .... does cutting down on pollution help or not?  

You can see across the globe?  Can you see the Pyramids?  Look for three pointy structures on a beach.  

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/24/2020 at 4:46 PM, Koko78 said:

I still think they'd be better served trying to promote the benefits of breathing clean air, drinking clean water, and eating food grown in clean soil, rather than the "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IN 12 YEARS!!!!!!!!eleventyone11111" histrionic crap.

 

But general pollution and greenhouse gas pollution are two distinct classes of problems, both of which are too important to ignore. General pollution is much easier to explain to the public because the safety thresholds for heavy metals, pesticides, and industrial chemicals are comparatively tiny and easily demonstrable. Greenhouse gases are much more difficult to explain because of their “boiling-frog-slowly” effects and because the big names (water, carbon dioxide) are still completely harmless in incredibly large amounts. Hence the motivation for all the global warming histrionics to capture the public’s attention.

 

But we agree that Bill Nye climate alarmist types are only embarrassing themselves with the “OMG we have 12 years before we all die!!” talk. I prefer a more stoic and intellectually honest strategy like “X ppm of carbon dioxide will lead to Y degrees Celsius temperature rise and Z meters of sea level rise that will create an estimated D dollars of global damage and an estimated N number of related human deaths within an estimated T years of time.” Or something like that.

 

On 4/26/2020 at 9:42 PM, Buffalo Timmy said:

The issue with Climate Change is that scientists are never present to answer hard questions and always turn to computer models. I personally know many people who went ESF and graduated with environmental science degrees from there and more than half call Greta and the like stupid and even the ones who agree humans are a major source of the warming believe we need to prep for it since we can't stop 90% of the world's population.

 

The scientists are there answering hard questions, but “there” is almost always a science conference or a scientific journal article. Between the jargon-laden scientists and the public is supposed to be this amazingly efficacious pipeline of communication consisting of popular science journalists, mainstream media personnel, public science promoters, and politicians. Something has gone awry among these communication middlemen. I believe the cause is a combination of widespread scientific illiteracy and the corruptible influence of money.

 

Computer models are ubiquitous throughout every subject of science and engineering these days, so it is not unusual or suspicious for climatologists to lean heavily on them.

 

Even if we all agreed that global warming (man-made or natural) is both occurring and unavoidable, it still leads us into a similarly contentious conversation of what role government has in helping our country adapt to a new Earth.

 

On 4/27/2020 at 10:05 PM, SydneyBillsFan said:

Renewable energy myth smashed, debunked, buried and cremated by....MICHAEL FRIGGIN' MOORE!! Yes, that's right....one of their own has fully exposed the world's greatest sham!!

 

You just couldn't make it up ?

 

Well worth watching, except that even after taking a bite out of their own global warming crap sandwich, they still cannot admit that global warming policy is a complete waste of time and money.

 

Grab some popcorn from your eco-microwave and enjoy!

 

As it turns out, I was in agreement with many of Moore’s takes on the subject before watching the documentary:

 

1. Renewable energies like solar and wind are overrated when you look at their entire energy life cycle (beginning from material production) and including their location limitations, gross energy production, and deleterious impact on certain aspects of the environment.

2. Biomass fuels are no good, for the most part, especially when the biomasses are forests.

3. Overpopulation, overconsumption, and unrestrained capitalism are the true problems.

4. Prominent environmental activists and organizations are corrupt and hypocritical in many instances (surprised by Bill McKibben though…).

 

My biggest complaints with the documentary:

 

1. No countervailing references to the many more ways that government and the media are corrupted by fossil fuel industry money (as opposed to the ways that renewable energy industries are shown in the documentary to be favored).

2. Ridiculously superficial coverage of Green New Deal progress made in Europe.

3. Did not really address potential solutions. Just off the top of my head: nuclear energy industry investments, research into thorium-based nuclear power plants, research into nuclear fusion reactors, latest research into replacements for the internal combustion engine and the jet engine, terraforming possibilities, and the impact of veganism. Moore could have left the documentary on a more hopeful note by spending 15-30 additional minutes on solutions. Or maybe Moore’s intention was to leave the viewers on a pessimistic note so to galvanize them into action?

4. This seemed to be more of a polemic directed within the internal environmental left community. I would have reframed the movie’s content with the general American public as the intended audience. Seems like a major lost opportunity here.

 

FWIW, this is a very controversial documentary that is already getting viciously attacked for inaccuracies. Something to keep in mind.

[Deranged Rhino]

Not sure if the full movie was posted or not... but here's Michael Moore's latest on this topic.