Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

Threegoofs said:

Well, lots of suggestions are here:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



You seem to be unfamiliar with this, so I'll let you peruse it first.

Click to expand...

Ok, so I went through about 20 pages of:

http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf

And a few things I noticed...

1. They employ one of the first mitigation factors as "economic inequality" across the globe, and the "shifting of resources" in terms of equalizing different countries efforts, but then they make extensive that while this happens these very countries are given excuses for not doing a damned thing while they rake in money from other wealthier countries.....

This "shifting of resource" is through the development and creation of a global carbon credit exchange, and with this creation of a global fiat currency they achieve two things...a. They de-peg the dollar as the worlds currency of trade, and b. they are able to drain wealth from wealthier countries and redistribute it to poorer countries.

This is a horrible idea in my humble opinion, and will meet with significant opposition not only within the US, but other countries as well....

2. They roll out the same things that we already have been told about previously to mitigate supposed AGW, such as:

a. Planting trees
b. Carbon sequester
c. increased use of "renewable's" (but the only thing they actually name is Nuclear)
d. increase of "bio-energy"

And my personal favorite:

Encroaching on private land use. Which imho, any abrogation of private property rights is the start of giving up freedom.

3. And lastly, the emphasis on the numbers, and charts used based on politicized, highly contested data conclusions is specious in its call for a hyperbolic rhetorical excuses for global wealth redistribution and really little concerning ideas on how to shift from the supposed "harmful energy sources" now used throughout the world.

Bergslagstroll said:

One solution for increasing renewable energy and reduding C02 is community power. This is also a way giving more indepdence and power to individuals and communities. Instead of countining being dependent on big multinational companies. That instead of having huge expensive powerplant for example coal that only big companies or the goverment can run you instead have small renewable solutions that can be own and run by communities.

https://www.foeeurope.org/community-Power-benefits-briefing-011213

One other thing is reducing the consumption of meat. That USA but also many other countries today are mulicultural. With imigrants from the medditarien countries, India and other places with a lot of great vegetarian or partly vegatarian dishes. So maybee it's possible to try some of those dishes and if you like it find some new great dishes to eat.

Click to expand...

So, not only are you expressing that the availability of reliable, low cost energy be just done away with, without really explaining what would take its place, or how long it would take to do any such transition if it were even possible without crashing countries, and destroying living standards. Then if that is not enough, you then propose that everyone on the planet give up red meat, for a vegan lifestyle? Who the hell is anyone to tell me what to eat, and what I can't have?

Yeah, good luck with that one.

Threegoofs said:

I would imagine.

Of course, if you bothered to look at the link, it lists the scientific organizations that have issues statements on AGW.

Click to expand...

Does man effect the environment? Sure, man does. Will limiting CO2 reduce the effects of global warming? Sure, it won't. And, unless you have every country on board with carbon emissions regulation, you won't reduce CO2, either. How do you plan to reduce the carbon footprint when CO2 is exhaled from every human?

Tell me again with a straight face how environmentalists propose to retard global warming? Tell me again with a straight face the earth is in imminent danger from global warming.

cabse5 said:

Does man effect the environment? Sure, man does. Will limiting CO2 reduce the effects of global warming? Sure, it won't. And, unless you have every country on board with carbon emissions regulation, you won't reduce CO2, either. How do you plan to reduce the carbon footprint when CO2 is exhaled from every human?

Tell me again with a straight face how environmentalists propose to retard global warming? Tell me again with a straight face the earth is in imminent danger from global warming.

Click to expand...

Well by taking your wealth and giving it to someone else of course....Oh, and planting trees. :mrgreen:

Middleground said:

It tips the delicate balance, cabse5. And not by a lot, too. And it's that tip that is cause our planet to warm.

Click to expand...

I'll repeat: how does your environmental, 'let's return the earth to a more pristine environment' ideology prevent global warming? Heck, how does it fit into a discussion of ways to prevent global warming?

j-mac said:

Well by taking your wealth and giving it to someone else of course....Oh, and planting trees. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Little do they realize that reducing CO2 in the atmosphere will kill some of their precious, planted trees since trees get lots of their nourishment from CO2 in the atmosphere.

Oh what a conundrum for environmentalists: do we prevent global warming or do we kill trees?

cabse5 said:

Little do they realize that reducing CO2 in the atmosphere will kill some of their precious, planted trees since trees get lots of their nourishment from CO2 in the atmosphere.

Click to expand...

I know...It's all so stupid, and laughable....I am surprised that anyone doesn't see what is really behind this scheme.

We need to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere.It's that 'simple.'

Middleground said:

We need to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere.It's that 'simple.'

Click to expand...

Ok, even if the numbers were reversed on this poll, and people actually believed this crap, the problem you have is that certain entities have made this more about politics, than actual science, and have tied a redistribution scheme into it that does little to mitigate anything other than wealth in the world.

If it were only about science, then it may be a better argument, but right now? Not.

Oh heck, this has become a free for all. The Environmental Protection Agency's main goal is to return the earth to a more pristine environment, and when BP's Deepwater Horizon incident occurred off the coast of Louisiana, how could The EPA not find itself partly culpable? Didn't The EPA's regulations of drilling offshore and drilling a mile down help cause the very disaster they were trying to prevent?

j-mac said:

From highly insulting people that think that those that disagree with them are somehow just north of mentally handicapped, to the mockery of the disciple of Gorentology that comes at you with the viciousness of a typical cult member when their religion is under question, it is clear that the majority of voters in this country don't buy the lie that the case is settled, that the argument is over...

Back to fringe obscurity GW lunatics. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

"global warming" is nothing more than an natural event that was hijacked by progressives in an attempt to scare individuals into a more controlled US er fascism.

These quacks are pulling a total sheet over the publics head and are challenging others to prove a negative - which you cant prove. Hell, prove I didn't **** Moochele Obama?

Beyond that tho - There is not enough data to even come up with a theory considering the earth is 4.6 billion years old....

All geology can say is that the climate changes, and it has been changing for the last 2 billion years...

AGW is just a convenient excuse to regulate.

cabse5 said:

Little do they realize that reducing CO2 in the atmosphere will kill some of their precious, planted trees since trees get lots of their nourishment from CO2 in the atmosphere.

Oh what a conundrum for environmentalists: do we prevent global warming or do we kill trees?

Click to expand...

LOL.

(Citation needed)

j-mac said:

So, not only are you expressing that the availability of reliable, low cost energy be just done away with, without really explaining what would take its place, or how long it would take to do any such transition if it were even possible without crashing countries, and destroying living standards. Then if that is not enough, you then propose that everyone on the planet give up red meat, for a vegan lifestyle? Who the hell is anyone to tell me what to eat, and what I can't have?

Yeah, good luck with that one.

Click to expand...

As I already posted we see today a large global increase in both solar and wind power. I also have posted a report about community power, but of course I understand you have other things then reading a report. But maybee you have time to look at some of this positive examples.

Inspiring stories - www.communitypower.eu

Then it comes to meat I guess it the same in your country USA that you are constantly bombarded with advertisment for meat products especially hamburgers.You can also not choose to see them because they are for exampel on big billboards along side public roads.


But you get pissed then I suggested atleast trying new food from countries famous for making great vegatarian and partly vegatarian dishes. As a potential way for many people to reduce C02 and also find new favorite dishesand at the same time eat more healthy. But I didn't say anything about forcing people or that people should give up meat completly.

iliveonramen said:

I just did a poll...95% of people would not use public opinion polls to determine what is scientifically accurate. The 5% of course were unsure because they were just north of mentally handicapped.

Click to expand...

Progressive ****s sure love to use "polls" and "studies" to shove **** down people throats - why stop now?

cabse5 said:

Little do they realize that reducing CO2 in the atmosphere will kill some of their precious, planted trees since trees get lots of their nourishment from CO2 in the atmosphere.

Oh what a conundrum for environmentalists: do we prevent global warming or do we kill trees?

Click to expand...

I bet these AGW ****s have no idea how much carbon makes up our atmosphere.

Those who know laugh because it's extremely minimal - even to an extent that it is a miracle that plants can survive..

Mr.Nick said:

Progressive ****s sure love to use "polls" and "studies" to shove **** down people throats - why stop now?

Click to expand...

Well the poll in the orginal article got the result hat 60% of voters consider global warming a serious problem. Also what does it really mean that 20% of voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is not over? It can for example mean that they believe thet debate about the existing of and reason for global warming is over but not the scientific debate over it's consequences.

Also in any democracy debate and sceptism is a good thing, but it also have to be a limit to it. For example that you can't insert a comment from a person that believes moon landing in a hoax in every article about the moonlanding.

You can also have an historical outlock on todays debate on global warming. That coperations have a long history of fighting scientificc result and trying to creat doubt if they believe scientific findings threathen their profit.

Take the cigarette compnanies that for decades did know that cigarette smoke was unhealthy but still succesfully promoted the idea that the evidence was inconclusive until the companies was exposed.


http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070.long


Also the debate on lead in petrol. From the start it was clear that it was dangereus with lead. But the oil company was so succesful at atacking science so it took to the 1970'sto start regulating the use of lead.


Tetraethyllead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Latest "Cosmos" Explains How Corporations Fund Science Denial | Mother Jones

You have also regulare people that are not either dumb or evil, but just human. For example a mother during the 1980's that have allowed her son and daughter to start smoking on a early age, she would then really want to believe the cigarette company that it's probably safe. Instead of realising that she have allowed her children to smoke a dangeraus product.

Middleground said:

We need to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere.It's that 'simple.'

Click to expand...

No we dont, this is mindless propaganda for the ignorant masses that apparently you've fallen for hook line & sinker. You really need to develop some crtitcal thinking skills.

Mr.Nick said:

I bet these AGW ****s have no idea how much carbon makes up our atmosphere.

Those who know laugh because it's extremely minimal - even to an extent that it is a miracle that plants can survive..

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that every single scientist who is working on this issue is acutely aware of the % of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And they aren't laughing because it's minimal. The overwhelming majority know AGW is very, very real.

But many ARE laughing at your suggestion that plants are barely surviving because of CO2 concentrations.

Bergslagstroll said:

Well the poll in the orginal article got the result hat 60% of voters consider global warming a serious problem. Also what does it really mean that 20% of voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is not over? It can for example mean that they believe thet debate about the existing of and reason for global warming is over but not the scientific debate over it's consequences.

Also in any democracy debate and sceptism is a good thing, but it also have to be a limit to it. For example that you can't insert a comment from a person that believes moon landing in a hoax in every article about the moonlanding.

You can also have an historical outlock on todays debate on global warming. That coperations have a long history of fighting scientificc result and trying to creat doubt if they believe scientific findings threathen their profit.

Take the cigarette compnanies that for decades did know that cigarette smoke was unhealthy but still succesfully promoted the idea that the evidence was inconclusive until the companies was exposed.


The Cigarette Controversy


Also the debate on lead in petrol. From the start it was clear that it was dangereus with lead. But the oil company was so succesful at atacking science so it took to the 1970'sto start regulating the use of lead.


Tetraethyllead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Latest "Cosmos" Explains How Corporations Fund Science Denial | Mother Jones

You have also regulare people that are not either dumb or evil, but just human. For example if you have allowed you son and daughter to start smoking on a early age, you would then really want to believe the cigarette company that it's probably safe. Instead of realising that you have allowed you children to smoke a dangeraus product.

Click to expand...

Of course people believe global warming is a serious problem - they have been brainwashed with the idea.

Understanding the science is the difficult part, and the science is made up - it's absolutely preposterous... Don't get me wrong I believe the climate changes but to blame it on man is asinine, now obviously man has a role in our environment, however not enough of a roll to drastically change our environment.

AGW hysteria is nothing more than a "power grab" - an attempt to grant money and regulate a capitalist economy under false pretenses.

This idea is dangerous and it is a shame people believe it.

All one needs to look at is the percentage of carbon in the atmosphere - that clearly points out bull****...

Also, 50 years ago these nuts were talking about GLOBAL COOLING - not AGW........ Why do you think they call it "climate change" instead of global warming? these fools are confused themselves so "climate change" is a safe phrase.

Bergslagstroll said:

Also in any democracy debate and sceptism is a good thing, but it also have to be a limit to it.

Click to expand...

So then you opine that the first Amendment should be rolled back and limited to what Liberal dogma permits?

You can also have an historical outlock on todays debate on global warming. That coperations have a long history of fighting scientificc result and trying to creat doubt if they believe scientific findings threathen their profit.

Click to expand...

You mean like all thes phoney Green companies & folks like AlGore that need the lies to continue in order for there profits to keep coming?

Take the cigarette compnanies that for decades did know that cigarette smoke was unhealthy but still succesfully promoted the idea that the evidence was inconclusive until the companies was exposed.

Click to expand...

Is this not somewhat simliar to all the fudged data found in East Anglia E-mails that proves they were lying but now despite this evidence they are full steam ahead with the lies despite the evidence of lying?

Iron Yank said:

No we dont, this is mindless propaganda for the ignorant masses that apparently you've fallen for hook line & sinker. You really need to develop some crtitcal thinking skills.

Click to expand...

So why is the planet warming?

Verax said:

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Mainstream AGW science never predicted "doomsday" scenarios by 2014. The hyperbole of this is also deceptive. The effects of global warming are more about grinding consequences that worsen many human scenarios around the world than some kind of doomsday cataclysm.

Click to expand...

Maybe predictions that the ice caps will melt, coastal cities will flood, and all the other 'predictions' of runaway anthropogenic created CO2 aren't 'doomsday predictions' to you. But they sure look that way to me.

I've been following this stuff since the 1970's and noting when this was supposed to happen or that was supposed to happen. Did you forget that in 2007 Al Gore was amassing his fortune by declaring that the Arctic ocean would be ice free by 2014? But non of the AGW religionists are criticizing him now are they?

We are in the middle of summer in 2014 and the ice coverage is pretty normal--no danger that ice melt will be as much as that of at least five other years in the very short (33 years) period that records have been kept of ice melt. So everybody moved the goal posts to 2050 that the great melt is expected to be a done deal. That gives them another 35 or so years to take more liberties, choices, options, and opportunities away from the people and solidify their personal fortunes before they have to ignore how wrong they got that too and move the 'doomsday' prophecy dates again.

AlbqOwl said:

Maybe predictions that the ice caps will melt, coastal cities will flood, and all the other 'predictions' of runaway anthropogenic created CO2 aren't 'doomsday predictions' to you. But they sure look that way to me.

I've been following this stuff since the 1970's and noting when this was supposed to happen or that was supposed to happen. Did you forget that in 2007 Al Gore was amassing his fortune by declaring that the Arctic ocean would be ice free by 2014? But non of the AGW religionists are criticizing him now are they?

We are in the middle of summer in 2014 and the ice coverage is pretty normal--no danger that ice melt will be as much as that of at least five other years in the very short (33 years) period that records have been kept of ice melt. So everybody moved the goal posts to 2050 that the great melt is expected to be a done deal. That gives them another 35 or so years to take more liberties, choices, options, and opportunities away from the people and solidify their personal fortunes before they have to ignore how wrong they got that too and move the 'doomsday' prophecy again.

Click to expand...

Maybe you're not aware of the data on arctic sea ice.



See that big bounce back recently? Not too impressive.

And while you seem like you really believe what you're saying, please note that Gore said that 'some scientists believe that the arctic could be ice free in the summer of 2015'. Looks like we are definitely headed that direction, although it's a decade or two away....which is what MOST scientists had predicted.

Threegoofs said:

Maybe you're not aware of the data on arctic sea ice.

See that big bounce back recently? Not too impressive.

And while you seem like you really believe what you're saying, please note that Gore said that 'some scientists believe that the arctic could be ice free in the summer of 2015'. Looks like we are definitely headed that direction, although it's a decade or two away....which is what MOST scientists had predicted.

Click to expand...

I'm getting my ice cap data from the government agency who reports it every single month. I don't take it from pro-AGW message board sites.

As for Al Gore, he had revised his predictions a bit by 2009:


Which makes one wonder how many times those computer models will have to be wrong before at least some of the AGW religionists will also become skeptics?

CanadaJohn said:

Didn't you just do exactly what you claim j-mac was doing - i.e. insult him for posting a poll rather than debate the merits of the poll?

Part of the problem with environmental science is that it is entirely counter to people's own experiences and all of the remedies appear to be ones that almost totally destroy the lifestyle people have worked hard to create. No wonder people, those well informed and those not well informed, challenge the validity of the "science" presented to them.

Click to expand...

Wonder how many lost civilizations would be around if they had listened to those saying "I think we may have a problem here."

They listened to their Koch brothers, though, and we can see where that got them.