• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says[W:46]

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

fmw said:
It is money and politics that allow scientists to push the science. If the current state of the science were stable, there wouldn't be any meaningful disagreement. In fact a majority of the U.S. population agrees with the deniers.
Click to expand...

Yes, and deniers get money as well. But governments do want this to be true. Find a totalitarian government that is working to ease GW. Again, you guys seem like you'd be much happier in China.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Every single major national scientific organization of note in the world tells them of how climate change is already affecting the world and how much more it will affect the world...and what do the conservatives worry about? Taxes.

"Hundreds of billions for defense, but not one penny to address the worldwide danger the scientific community is warning us about".
Click to expand...
BS. It's about funding, which there isn't any if everything is just fine.

These "scientists" claim the Antarctic ice caps are melting. It's -70 degrees there. What "science" says ice melts when it's 100 degrees below freezing?

These guys want money for research. Nothing more.
 
Erod said:
BS. It's about funding, which there isn't any if everything is just fine.

These "scientists" claim the Antarctic ice caps are melting. It's -70 degrees there. What "science" says ice melts when it's 100 degrees below freezing?

These guys want money for research. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Odd you can money for, but not when companies pay for against verdicts. However, you're premised, flawed as it is, assumes there would be nothing else for them to do, nothing else to investigate, nothing else to tackle. This is hardly the case.
 
Boo Radley said:
Odd you can money for, but not when companies pay for against verdicts. However, you're premised, flawed as it is, assumes there would be nothing else for them to do, nothing else to investigate, nothing else to tackle. This is hardly the case.
Click to expand...

Wrong. If their task is saving us from extinction, the funding becomes unlimited.

It's just amazes me how people are falling for this bunk.
 
Erod said:
Wrong. If their task is saving us from extinction, the funding becomes unlimited.

It's just amazes me how people are falling for this bunk.
Click to expand...

No, there would always be something. But let's follow your logic. We can't trust science. What then? We can only trust those who don't know anything about it? Well, then don't go to a doctor. Money's involved, so see aunt Sarah. She's never been to med school, but so what? This is your logic at work.
 
If AGW were such a dire threat to the planet, then why allow polluters to continue if they just pay more? Is that science? Or wealth redistribution?
 
Erod said:
BS. It's about funding, which there isn't any if everything is just fine.

These "scientists" claim the Antarctic ice caps are melting. It's -70 degrees there. What "science" says ice melts when it's 100 degrees below freezing?

These guys want money for research. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Um, do you know what surrounds the Antarctic land ice sheet? Seawater, right? Right.

Now this might be real tough to get your mind around, but do you know why that seawater is not frozen? BECAUSE IT'S TOO FREAKING WARM TO FREEZE. And what's happening? That water which has been warming for the past few decades - even if only a little bit - is now warm enough to start melting the Antarctic land ice. That's precisely what's happening, and it's apparently unstoppable.

Will the rising seawater level swamp North Texas where you're at? Of course not. But say goodbye to a lot of the current Texas coastline within the next century. Oh, I know, you don't worry about it because you won't be here to see it...but your grandkids will.
 
j-mac said:
If AGW were such a dire threat to the planet, then why allow polluters to continue if they just pay more? Is that science? Or wealth redistribution?
Click to expand...

Because we don't have a dictatorship, government is not responsive to science, only to voters and money.
 
Boo Radley said:
Because we don't have a dictatorship, government is not responsive to science, only to voters and money.
Click to expand...

We have all sorts of laws and regulations that impose threat of prison. But you can buy your way out of this? Nah, not buyin' the hype Joe.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Um, do you know what surrounds the Antarctic land ice sheet? Seawater, right? Right.

Now this might be real tough to get your mind around, but do you know why that seawater is not frozen? BECAUSE IT'S TOO FREAKING WARM TO FREEZE. And what's happening? That water which has been warming for the past few decades - even if only a little bit - is now warm enough to start melting the Antarctic land ice. That's precisely what's happening, and it's apparently unstoppable.

Will the rising seawater level swamp North Texas where you're at? Of course not. But say goodbye to a lot of the current Texas coastline within the next century. Oh, I know, you don't worry about it because you won't be here to see it...but your grandkids will.
Click to expand...
Interesting, except for the part that it's not due to AGW whatsoever. It's happened countless times before, and will reverse in time again. Of course you won't be here for an "I told you so."

Gullibility is a weakness.
 
Erod said:
These "scientists" claim the Antarctic ice caps are melting. It's -70 degrees there. What "science" says ice melts when it's 100 degrees below freezing?

.
Click to expand...

Gosh. Maybe if you read a little if what the concept is, you'd understand it looks pretty cretinish to dismiss science without understanding it at all.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...inds-glaciers-melting-global-warming-science/

I'm guessing you also think 'the tides go in, the tides go out....science can't explain that'!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mkoPq5AOCOA
 
Erod said:
Interesting, except for the part that it's not due to AGW whatsoever. It's happened countless times before, and will reverse in time again. Of course you won't be here for an "I told you so."

Gullibility is a weakness.
Click to expand...

Except that every time it's happened before, we've been able to identify what caused it. This time, however, there's none of those other factors involved...but there IS a new factor that was never involved before: people pumping literally billions and billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere...every freaking year.

Guy, you do know that every gallon of gasoline burned results in 20 lbs. of CO2 into the atmosphere, right? Look it up - it's simple chemistry. There's a half billion cars operating today, and I think we can safely say each one uses at least a tank per week. So if I'm REALLY kind and say that each car uses only 10 gallons of gas per week, that's 10 times 500M times 20 lbs. of CO2...

...every single week. And that's not counting factories or ships or aircraft or trains or military vehicles or trucks.

What's amazing is that your side has convinced itself that we can pump billions and billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere (and deforest tens of thousands of square miles of CO2-absorbing forest) each and every year, but nothing would change in our atmosphere. You can only crap in your own crib for so long before it starts to really stink, guy - and the earth is the crib of humanity.
 
j-mac said:
We have all sorts of laws and regulations that impose threat of prison. But you can buy your way out of this? Nah, not buyin' the hype Joe.
Click to expand...

Yes, you guys fight every regulation. And that fight has been very successful.

Scientists noticed something that the public largely overlooked: the most outspoken scientific critiques of global warming predictions did not appear in the standard peer-reviewed scientific publications. The critiques tended to appear in venues funded by industrial groups, or in conservative media like the Wall Street Journal. Most climate experts, while agreeing that future warming was not a proven fact, found the critics' counter-arguments dubious, and some publicly decried their reports as misleading.(123) Other experts, Hansen for one, exclaimed that "wait and see" was no way to deal with the "climate time-bomb." Going beyond calls to limit greenhouse gas emissions, he concluded that "governments must foster conditions leading to population stabilization."(124) On several points open conflict broke out between some scientists, with acrimonious and personalized exchanges.(125)
To science journalists and their editors, the controversy was confusing, but excellent story material. The American media gave climate change substantial coverage through the late 1980s and early 1990s, notably in the New York Times, which still largely set the agenda for other American media. News magazines published many stories, although television gave only light coverage. Many reporters took a skeptical view of the administration's position. Outside a few deeply conservative media like the Wall Street Journal and right-wing talk radio programs, journalists tended to accept that greenhouse warming was underway. Following the usual tendency of the media to grab attention with dire predictions, a majority of the reports suggested that the consequences of global warming could be cataclysmic, with devastating droughts, ferocious storms, waves attacking drowned coastlines, the spread of deadly tropical diseases. The worst consequences were expected for certain vulnerable developing nations, but as usual the America media gave little attention to the rest of the world. Many stories optimistically suggested that technological progress would solve the problem. Journalists did not often emphasize that citizens might have to make hard choices between conflicting values.

Snip

But it is often enough to publicize an idea, however wrong, to leave many people convinced that there must be something to it. An analysis of news reports published between 1988 and 2004 in four influential American newspapers found that more than half of the articles gave roughly as much attention to the small band of denier scientists as they did to the view accepted by the IPCC and all the other rigorous scientific panels. (skepticism about the IPCC's findings and the IPCC itself was represented even better in editorial pages). On television during 1995-2004, more than two-thirds of the news reports "balanced" the opposing views as if they had equal support in the scientific community. The denying scientists quoted in reports frequently had financial ties to corporate lobbying groups, a fact the reporters often failed to mention. The veteran American environmental journalist Ross Gelbspan bitterly accused his colleagues of being duped, bought out, or intimidated by fossil-fuel interests.(136a*)




If so, it was largely an American phenomenon. In most other industrialized nations, oil companies and their right-wing allies had less policy influence. And it was mainly in the United States that they worked hard to push their view of climate change upon the media. The deniers' views, however, were increasingly echoed in other English-speaking countries from Canada to Australia. Journalists elsewhere rarely quoted deniers, and for much of the world climate change never became an intensely polarized political issue.

The Public and Climate, cont.
 
j-mac said:
We have all sorts of laws and regulations that impose threat of prison. But you can buy your way out of this? Nah, not buyin' the hype Joe.
Click to expand...

I gave you this before, balance as bias:

hascontributedin significantwaystothisfaileddiscursivetranslation throughtheadherencetojournalisticnorms,andmore specifically to the journalistic norm of balance.16 In the end, adherence to the norm of balanced reporting leads toinformationallybiasedcoverageofglobalwarming. This bias, hidden behind the veil of journalistic balance, createsbothdiscursiveandrealpoliticalspaceforthe USgovernmenttoshirkresponsibilityanddelayaction regarding global warming.

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Except that every time it's happened before, we've been able to identify what caused it. This time, however, there's none of those other factors involved...but there IS a new factor that was never involved before: people pumping literally billions and billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere...every freaking year.

Guy, you do know that every gallon of gasoline burned results in 20 lbs. of CO2 into the atmosphere, right? Look it up - it's simple chemistry. There's a half billion cars operating today, and I think we can safely say each one uses at least a tank per week. So if I'm REALLY kind and say that each car uses only 10 gallons of gas per week, that's 10 times 500M times 20 lbs. of CO2...

...every single week. And that's not counting factories or ships or aircraft or trains or military vehicles or trucks.

What's amazing is that your side has convinced itself that we can pump billions and billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere (and deforest tens of thousands of square miles of CO2-absorbing forest) each and every year, but nothing would change in our atmosphere. You can only crap in your own crib for so long before it starts to really stink, guy - and the earth is the crib of humanity.
Click to expand...
Since CO2 is a reversible chemical process, the other side of the equation is also true.
A gallon of gas weighs about 6 lbs, and produces 20 lbs of CO2, so each pound of plant material grown sequesters about 3 lbs of CO2.
Does the timber industry get their carbon credit?
 
longview said:
Since CO2 is a reversible chemical process, the other side of the equation is also true.
A gallon of gas weighs about 6 lbs, and produces 20 lbs of CO2, so each pound of plant material grown sequesters about 3 lbs of CO2.
Does the timber industry get their carbon credit?
Click to expand...

Problem is, guy, that in past eons, the world had much more green plant mass - especially forests - with which to absorb the CO2. For example, most of the eastern half of America was essentially one big forest. Almost every time that you see a farm, you are looking at a place that is absorbing less CO2 than it once did - and how many farms are there in this world? In other words, the world can absorb less CO2 than before, but we're pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air from a source the world never had to deal with.

You can't claim "reversible chemical process" because the absorbing factor (trees, ocean, green plant mass) is now significantly less than it was before, and is less than the combination of the world's natural producers of CO2 +plus+ the billions of tons we're adding each year. It's the same as in any process - if more is added than can be removed, then the amount of what's added will only go up.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
No, scientist by and large don't have political agendas. And it is scientists who push the science.
Click to expand...

That may be the way it USED TO BE Boo Boo...but these guys are fighting for the almighty research dollar, which by the way, seem to flow from the liberal side of the agenda much more freely than from the conservative side. So under that scenario, what side of the agenda do you believe these alarmist scientists are supporting? Al Gore or George Bush?
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Grant said:
It's hopeless dealing with zealots.
Click to expand...

Frustrating maybe, but it is kind of fun to make them look like the mislead zealots they obviously are.
 
Erod said:
BS. It's about funding, which there isn't any if everything is just fine.

These "scientists" claim the Antarctic ice caps are melting. It's -70 degrees there. What "science" says ice melts when it's 100 degrees below freezing?

These guys want money for research. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

And they lie through their teeth to anyone (read that liberal politicians like algore) who will give it to them. Paid for telling damn lies.
 
Boo Radley said:
Odd you can money for, but not when companies pay for against verdicts. However, you're premised, flawed as it is, assumes there would be nothing else for them to do, nothing else to investigate, nothing else to tackle. This is hardly the case.
Click to expand...

How about slowing down Boo and trying to make a little sense for a change? Not only is your support for this hoax wrong, your posting is not even intelligible.
 
j-mac said:
If AGW were such a dire threat to the planet, then why allow polluters to continue if they just pay more? Is that science? Or wealth redistribution?
Click to expand...

Not when the money is going to algore or his friends, it's not?
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
That is factually incorrect. It may seem that way to those in the bubble, but you have it factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

The truth according to Boo Boo....BWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

HogWash said:
The truth according to Boo Boo....BWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
Click to expand...

Not sure your posts are worth responding to. I've linked science and studies. Try doing the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom