Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderators: Mick, TheGingerMan

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby headhonchoII » 06 May 2012, 13:10

fred smith wrote:
It's pretty simple, if the ice in Antartica and Greenland starts melting then you will get a major rise in sea levels, even if the whole of the Artic ice melted there would be no rise in sea levels. But arctic ice melting is a bad sign in itself.


Can you show us that this is happening? and like many on the global warming alarmist side, will you use 1975-1982 as a benchmark for making any assertions that we are seeing a major meltoff? I merely ask because this was a relatively cold period that for some unknown (haha) reason ends up being the point of comparison. So we take a 30% relatively colder period and then say things are 30% warmer now with 30% more ice melt now and that proves what exactly? That we are back at Point 0 for averages?


I have heard the ice cap is melting in Greenland but it would still take hundreds of years to completely clear.
I don't pretend to be up to date on the minutiae.

I agree that sea levels rising is not the major issue due to the above fact, storm surges from more powerful weather systems are a much bigger concern currently.

I also agree completely that any conclusion can be skewed by choosing what is the start point and what is the end point. It's something that most journalists and reporters seem to ignore completely, being the dumbed down copy pasters that most of them are these days.

Still if the scientists who study this say we have experienced significant faster warming since CO2 levels increased, then I am going to sit up and take notice. There is also the acidification issue in play.

I'm with finley mostly though as I think we need to deal with particulate pollution as a priority, being forced to live under it for much of the year in Taiwan and China and elsewhere.
I can remember the fourth of July runnin' through the backwood bare.
And I can still hear my old hound dog barkin' chasin' down a hoodoo there
Chasin' down a hoodoo there.
headhonchoII
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12326
Joined: 26 Aug 2002, 10:40
Location: Taipei
1546 Recommends(s)
567 Recognized(s)



Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby fred smith » 06 May 2012, 13:16

now, in your experience, headhoncho, would you say that economic development has aided in the reduction of pollutants or would you point to the vast successes of say awareness raising campaigns to achieve this? Where is pollution worse? richer countries? or poorer ones? and do we see trendlines that indicate whether pollution increases/decreases as a nation becomes more developed and thus richer? and would we also be able to see whether tax and regulatory burdens make a country develop faster and thus affect whether it becomes richer/poorer? So... if POLLUTION is the key concern, what is the BEST solution? in your view? based on the above thinking?
Forumosan avatar
fred smith
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16698
Joined: 11 Oct 2002, 17:14
1 Recommends(s)
56 Recognized(s)



Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby stevef » 13 May 2012, 21:56

Image
Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... te-threat/
stevef
English Teacher with Headband (bǎng tóujīn de Yīngwén lǎoshī)
English Teacher with Headband (bǎng tóujīn de Yīngwén lǎoshī)
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 17 Apr 2010, 14:22
2 Recognized(s)



Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby fred smith » 13 May 2012, 22:50

Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group.


The genuine article mostly yes..

We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies.


Well, then "YOU" have been shanghaied by a very ambitious group of wannabes and charlatans.

Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees.


Except for the ones who get 99.9% of the coverage day in and out. And what is "your" role in "climatology?"

Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.


Really? a clear and present danger? I think that the only consensus on this is that man is contributing x to global warming which is occurring but that it could vary from a to z on the degree scale with most people putting it at d-f in terms of intensity which is similar to what we have experienced since 1850 when a mini ICE AGE was ending. Which is why the ones who are not as responsible as you have consistently used benchmarks from 1975-1982 when the world was much colder... So where is the clear and present danger and how does your "role" as a "climatologist" give you the "clout" to ensure that "this time" is going to be "different" than all the other "warnings of the sky falling" over the past 30 years?
Forumosan avatar
fred smith
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16698
Joined: 11 Oct 2002, 17:14
1 Recommends(s)
56 Recognized(s)



Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby Jack Burton » 24 May 2012, 09:39

fred smith wrote:Really? a clear and present danger? I think that the only consensus on this is that man is contributing x to global warming which is occurring but that it could vary from a to z on the degree scale with most people putting it at d-f in terms of intensity which is similar to what we have experienced since 1850 when a mini ICE AGE was ending. Which is why the ones who are not as responsible as you have consistently used benchmarks from 1975-1982 when the world was much colder... So where is the clear and present danger and how does your "role" as a "climatologist" give you the "clout" to ensure that "this time" is going to be "different" than all the other "warnings of the sky falling" over the past 30 years?


So you're saying there is no danger, no crisis simply because it's not anthropogenic... that if indeed we are experiencing a "natural" mini Ice Age... whew... we can relax now. much ado about nothing.

interesting logic Fred.


nevermind that the rates of change are faster than previous ice age...
Jack Burton: I don't get this at all. I thought Lo Pan...
Lo Pan: Shut up, Mr. Burton! You are not brought upon this world to get it!
Forumosan avatar
Jack Burton
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
 
Posts: 6361
Joined: 01 Apr 2003, 11:35
Location: living in bland suburbia
4 Recommends(s)
45 Recognized(s)



Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby fred smith » 25 May 2012, 16:09

So you're saying there is no danger, no crisis simply because it's not anthropogenic... that if indeed we are experiencing a "natural" mini Ice Age... whew... we can relax now. much ado about nothing.

interesting logic Fred.


nevermind that the rates of change are faster than previous ice age...


What is it with you and hyperventilating? such a typical liberal...

AGAIN.... for all the billions and billions spent on fighting climate change... what do you have to show for it? So the issue has always been, well, yes it is happening but how much is due to man and more important
what exactly are you going to do to stop it? spend more just to show that you care? even though the results are absolutely zero? Well, okay, then... as long as you feel good about yourself, never mind what actually
happens...
Forumosan avatar
fred smith
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16698
Joined: 11 Oct 2002, 17:14
1 Recommends(s)
56 Recognized(s)



Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby fred smith » 18 Jun 2012, 20:24

So after all these years and all the invective, the responses to the climate change URGENT ISSUE of OUR DAY are thus? to merely want to discuss possible energy-saving solutions with no hyperbole? no demands for action? no criticisms for lack of action? no we must act or die?

What a strange calmness seems to have descended on the climate change alarmism experience. So... is this the time? can I feel the urge to do a round of I TOLD YOU SO whoo hooos? What happened to this all-important movement? This we must act NOW effort?

I guess I could have seen this coming but just not so soon...

By the way, for those of you without a life... can you share what your next urgent life-mission will be? I just want to prepare myself for the condescension and posturing patronizing pabalum that I shall prepare...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Forumosan avatar
fred smith
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16698
Joined: 11 Oct 2002, 17:14
1 Recommends(s)
56 Recognized(s)



Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby headhonchoII » 19 Jun 2012, 08:45

Shushhh, it's the deafening sound.....of nobody listening.
I can remember the fourth of July runnin' through the backwood bare.
And I can still hear my old hound dog barkin' chasin' down a hoodoo there
Chasin' down a hoodoo there.
headhonchoII
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12326
Joined: 26 Aug 2002, 10:40
Location: Taipei
1546 Recommends(s)
567 Recognized(s)



Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby Fortigurn » 19 Jun 2012, 12:58

fred smith wrote:So after all these years and all the invective, the responses to the climate change URGENT ISSUE of OUR DAY are thus? to merely want to discuss possible energy-saving solutions with no hyperbole? no demands for action? no criticisms for lack of action? no we must act or die?


No. The responses have been discussed repeatedly in detail on this site. If you want to see a significant silence, look at this thread. How interesting that you haven't posted in it once.
Hiking gear.
________________________
一閃一閃亮晶晶晶晶 我的項鍊到底在哪裡 滿天都是小星星星星 我要瞬間變成大明星!
一閃一閃眨眨眼眼眼 氣球飛來飛去的樂園 比太陽還耀眼眼眼眼 鑽石都讓到一邊!
我就是shining shining 大小姐 快大聲喊一遍! 我就是shining shining 大小姐 加滿元氣衝上天!
Forumosan avatar
Fortigurn
Former City Mayor (qiánrèn shìzhǎng)
Former City Mayor (qiánrèn shìzhǎng)
 
Posts: 4854
Joined: 16 Jan 2004, 17:59
Location: Wanfang
13 Recommends(s)
33 Recognized(s)



Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby Dr. McCoy » 19 Jun 2012, 16:19

I hope I don't get demised. I've been feeling a little demisey, but it may be the air pressure.
Forumosan avatar
Dr. McCoy
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 10298
Joined: 11 Oct 2007, 12:41
Location: New Taipei City, Yonghe District
146 Recommends(s)
95 Recognized(s)



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
PreviousNext




Proceed to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Mucha Man, The boss of who and 1 visitor

When someone sends you some shocking e-mail and suggests that you pass it on, don't. At least not until you've first confirmed its truth at snopes.com, the Internet's authority on e-mailed myths. This includes get-rich schemes, Microsoft/AOL cash giveaways, and--especially lately--nutty scare-tactic messages about our Presidential candidates.
More tips from David Pogue