Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Cugalabanza]

For those claiming global warming is real based on the fact that it's too hot for an airplane to fly in Phoenix today are about as intelligent as a person saying it's snowing outside so it's a hoax.

That is correct.

 

It probably is real though.

[Tiberius]

Big Oil wants to tax itself and give cash to Americans

 

Here are two shockers: Big Oil wants to tax itself to fight climate change. And it wants the proceeds to go to American families.

 

Companies would be taxed on the carbon dioxide generated by mining, drilling and other activities conducted in the U.S. The fee would start around $40 per ton and go up from there.

 

The tax proceeds would then be paid out to Americans -- regardless of income level -- in monthly installments through the Social Security Administration.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/20/news/oil-carbon-tax-payments/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

 

 

interesting

 

Tilting at wndmills at this point. But something will have to get done eventually

[Azalin]

It probably is real though.

 

There are many people who believe there is a likelihood that temperatures are increasing, but are still labeled as deniers because we question the extent of humanity's involvement.

[unbillievable]

 

There are many people who believe there is a likelihood that temperatures are increasing, but are still labeled as deniers because we question the extent of humanity's involvement.

 

This is true about every issue on the left, from feminism to global warming. It isn't about whether you agree, it's how fanatic you are about the cause. It's never good enough unless you're wearing black masks and attacking people with bike locks.

[Azalin]

 

This is true about every issue on the left, from feminism to global warming. It isn't about whether you agree, it's how fanatic you are about the cause. It's never good enough unless you're wearing black masks and attacking people with bike locks.

 

I get your point, but that's not really what I was trying to say. We know that Earth's climate is dynamic. We also know that climate science is essentially in it's infancy. Everyone knows that we've had ice ages, each followed by a warming period. It's also believed that the earth was much warmer at times in the past - I believe the protozoic and mesozoic were both believed to have been significantly warmer. As far as I know, all the reasons given for the climate swings the earth has experienced throughout history are hypothetical.

 

So, we have a long, established history of significant swings in climate before humanity ever came along. Is it a good idea to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Yeah, probably. Do we know for a fact that our use of fossil fuels is causing the earth to warm? Nope.

 

So given the above (and I'm sure Tom will correct anything I'm getting wrong here), is it a good idea to levy taxes and penalties based on what we actually know about climate science?

 

I say no.

[DC Tom]

 

There are many people who believe there is a likelihood that temperatures are increasing, but are still labeled as deniers because we question the extent of humanity's involvement.

 

Or because we point out that "consensus" is not a scientific principle. Or because we point out that science and policy are not the same thing, nor are science and activism.

[DC Tom]

 

I get your point, but that's not really what I was trying to say. We know that Earth's climate is dynamic.

 

And there's another thing: there's two groups of people that don't believe this. One is the extreme fundie Christians who believe the earth is 5000 years old and, being perfect upon Creation, is immutable. Therefore, the climate CAN'T be changing (or if it is, it's because we don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and God is pissed.)

 

The other...global warming zealots who believe that global warming can't possibly be a natural process, and that the earth must remain immutable unless we change it.

 

They're opposite sides of the same idiotic luddite coin.

 

 

 

We also know that climate science is essentially in it's infancy.

And there's another thing. Phoenix is nearing its hottest day IN HISTORY ("history" having started in...1880.) Arctic ice cover is at its lowest point EVER! ("ever" having started in 1979.) The past 400 years are a period of abnormal warming (when compared to the prior 400...a period of abnormal global cooling.)

 

We basically don't know ****, and are making it up as we go along. Which is why they have to substitute "consensus" for valid scientific investigation.

[grinreaper]

 

And there's another thing: there's two groups of people that don't believe this. One is the extreme fundie Christians who believe the earth is 5000 years old and, being perfect upon Creation, is immutable. Therefore, the climate CAN'T be changing (or if it is, it's because we don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and God is pissed.)

 

The other...global warming zealots who believe that global warming can't possibly be a natural process, and that the earth must remain immutable unless we change it.

 

They're opposite sides of the same idiotic luddite coin.

 

 

And there's another thing. Phoenix is nearing its hottest day IN HISTORY ("history" having started in...1880.) Arctic ice cover is at its lowest point EVER! ("ever" having started in 1979.) The past 400 years are a period of abnormal warming (when compared to the prior 400...a period of abnormal global cooling.)

 

We basically don't know ****, and are making it up as we go along. Which is why they have to substitute "consensus" for valid scientific investigation.

Ah, but here's the rub: There are very few of the bolded in comparison to the global warming zealots.

[DC Tom]

Ah, but here's the rub: There are very few of the bolded in comparison to the global warming zealots.

 

There's more than you think.

[4merper4mer]

I get your point, but that's not really what I was trying to say. We know that Earth's climate is dynamic. We also know that climate science is essentially in it's infancy. Everyone knows that we've had ice ages, each followed by a warming period. It's also believed that the earth was much warmer at times in the past - I believe the protozoic and mesozoic were both believed to have been significantly warmer. As far as I know, all the reasons given for the climate swings the earth has experienced throughout history are hypothetical.

 

So, we have a long, established history of significant swings in climate before humanity ever came along. Is it a good idea to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Yeah, probably. Do we know for a fact that our use of fossil fuels is causing the earth to warm? Nope.

 

So given the above (and I'm sure Tom will correct anything I'm getting wrong here), is it a good idea to levy taxes and penalties based on what we actually know about climate science?

 

I say no.

I'm not sure if dinosaurs were mammals but if they were their farts caused the last batch of global warming.

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

There's more than you think.

And there aren't many hardcore "earth can't change" on its own folk. Most climate scientists freely acknowledge cycles of warming and theorize that humans can contribute to it.

 

We certainly affect, mold, and form the earth in many ways. To think otherwise is gross naïveté.

 

The debate should be about whether it's worth it to take action on the change we reap. Same debate that frames the GWOT: What freedoms are worth giving up and what price makes sense in reaction to the danger ISIS and others pose?

[row_33]

And there aren't many hardcore "earth can't change" on its own folk. Most climate scientists freely acknowledge cycles of warming and theorize that humans can contribute to it.

 

We certainly affect, mold, and form the earth in many ways. To think otherwise is gross naïveté.

 

The debate should be about whether it's worth it to take action on the change we reap. Same debate that frames the GWOT: What freedoms are worth giving up and what price makes sense in reaction to the danger ISIS and others pose?

 

The debate is 100% political, taking from those who earn and handing it over to those who refuse to get off the couch.

 

Just adding "scientific" stuff to it. Was used to it hearing how Marxism was "scientific" for at least 12 major disciplines of the world.

 

Where did THAT all go in about 4 seconds...

[Tiberius]

 

The debate is 100% political, taking from those who earn and handing it over to those who refuse to get off the couch.

 

Just adding "scientific" stuff to it. Was used to it hearing how Marxism was "scientific" for at least 12 major disciplines of the world.

 

Where did THAT all go in about 4 seconds...

Here we go with the blather of thousands of posts from you "Marxism, Dems suck and I'm being murdered by government regulation" blah blah blah

[IDBillzFan]

The debate should be about whether it's worth it to take action on the change we reap.

 

The first debate should be about how to stop giving billions of taxpayer dollars to people who never use the money for anything other than their own lifestyles and creating studies that demand more money for a science they say is settled.

 

Get those whores out of this, and maybe you can get me to listen. As it is, it's nothing but money-laundering and hypocrisy at every level.

 

Oh, and China.

[Gary M]

Here we go with the blather of thousands of posts from you "Marxism, Dems suck and I'm being murdered by government regulation" blah blah blah

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17758/harvard-study-minimum-wage-hikes-killing-amanda-prestigiacomo

[boyst]

That is correct.

 

It probably is real though.

those stupid enough to believe phoenix matters more than Greensboro/ Winston-Salem/High Point are even more stupider.

 

It has yet to hit 90° and has averaged far below average highs down into the 50's in many places at night with highs barely getting over 85°

 

Those idiots also forget the Western Carolians where the last 4 yrs severalçounties saw temps in the 30s and 40's.

 

Yep. But Phoenix matters because mouth breathers need the narrative and Bill Bye is really samrt

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

The first debate should be about how to stop giving billions of taxpayer dollars to people who never use the money for anything other than their own lifestyles and creating studies that demand more money for a science they say is settled.

 

Get those whores out of this, and maybe you can get me to listen. As it is, it's nothing but money-laundering and hypocrisy at every level.

 

Oh, and China.

Change science funding sure that's ok too.

 

But if we were to prioritize large scale projects like restoring ecosystems or finding/ using alternate fuels, the science funding for climate change study may be trivial. And that's all I was getting at. There's a massive spend that comes with eco-engineering.

[OCinBuffalo]

And all of this is very nice....

 

...but Global Warming as a political issue, is still dead.

 

It will never again swing an election, and it will never again be discussed seriously on the House or Senate floor. Look at all the $ the far-left, and especially Soros and the other clown billionaire Tom Steyer, have spent...and gotten nothing but defeat. $25 mil from Steyer in 16, after $60 million to the D Senate candidates in 14...and we have a R POTUS and an R Senate.

 

It's simply not a viable political issue anymore. Democrats can't win with it. They are happy to take idiot Steyer's $, but, at some point even he has to wise up to the fact that his ROI is 0.

 

In all cases, as I said the day Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement nonsense: It. Is. Dead.

[row_33]

when the sun's melting you

and you are coated in 4th degree blisters

 

then you'll be sorry, how will you like them apples?

 

everybody's tryin' to step on their Cree-ayyyyyyyyyyy-torrrrrrrrrr...

[grinreaper]

https://pjmedia.com/blog/new-ipcc-report-eases-global-warming-prediction/

 

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) "fifth assessment report," will slightly dial back its predictions of how much the planet will warm over the coming decades.

 

Outside of the numbers, there appears to be an acknowledgement -- finally -- that there has been a significant pause in warming trends and that climate sensitivity to CO2 may have been overestimated.

 

The lower predictions are slight, but significant, says Matt Ridley, author of the article:

 

 

Specifically, the draft report says that "equilibrium climate sensitivity" (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is "extremely likely" to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), "likely" to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and "very likely" to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was "likely" to be above 2 degrees Celsius and "very likely" to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since "extremely" and "very" have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.

 

Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the "likely" range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time.

 

A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: "transient climate response" (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is "likely" to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and "extremely unlikely" to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 ("very likely" warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies).