David Attenborough disappointed with and sick of the USA's head in the sand attitude to global warming

[Wrath of Dagon]

ShadySands, on 17 Jul 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:ShadySands, on 17 Jul 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:

Thanks

 

Just so I'm clear then, the desire for the prevalent belief to be wrong is fear of poor transition to and implementation of new fuel sources and not the belief itself?

Desire or lack of evidence?

 

Azdeus, on 18 Jul 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:Azdeus, on 18 Jul 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

 

Wrath of Dagon, on 17 Jul 2014 - 9:43 PM, said:Wrath of Dagon, on 17 Jul 2014 - 9:43 PM, said:

OK, so you've got both an ad hominem and a strawman argument all in the same post. Dr Spencer is a well respected climate authority, so if you're going to cast aspersions you need to challenge something he's actually said. As far as energy efficiency, reducing pollution, almost no one is against that. What reasonable people are against is the idea that fossil fuels must be eliminated as soon as possible, regardless of the cost, else the world will end.

 

No, he's not a respected climate authority, he's a creationist & a crank.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/review-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/

 

 

 

QuoteQuoteBut for me his credibility as a climate scientist was most compromised with his assertion that “it would take only one research study to cause the global warming house of cards to collapse.” So much for weighing the evidence. As Arnold Schwarzenegger said about the diversity of views of climate scientists, if your child is ill and 98 out of 100 doctors call for life-saving surgery and 2 say it is not necessary, your decision is obvious.

 

Both sources you're quoting have a known agenda, which is to attack anyone who questions the global warming hysteria. Rational wiki article is just a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations and name calling, such as

 

QuoteIDiocy

While Spencer has become an ID PRATT machine, he hasn't contributed any new cards to the creationists' deck. He mostly just parrots the greatest hits like "no transitional fossils" and "microevolution not macroevolution."^[18] He also flogs the "secular religion" trope even harder when it comes to evolution than he does for global warming.

where are the links and the evidence?

 

RealClimate is more respectful, but doesn't show that anything Spencer stated is incorrect so far as I can see.

 

Edit: OK, after I posted, I noticed that my quote from rationalwiki does in fact have a link in it. I would agree his belief in ID as scientific theory does somewhat undermine his credibility, although I think his main point is that evolution theory has many holes in it.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[ShadySands]

Thanks WoD.

 

Whether I agree or not, I'm just trying to understand your position better and not really trying to argue the point.

[Wrath of Dagon]

My position is that the main body of evidence for global warming is a bunch of computer models which have never been validated and which don't predict anything correctly.

[JFSOCC]

that is because you are stupid and have no idea what you are talking about. There is a wealth of evidence out there, it has come from more than computer models, it has come from hard data, taken from soil and water samples around the world, from ice-cores drilled at the Arctic and Antarctic. From air samples taken everywhere around the world. From temperature measurements around the world. It isn't something of the future, Global Warming is already affecting us. I had led to catastrophic drought, shifting ocean currents, and extremely cold winters in the US because of it. in 2012 saw the largest crop failures in history. It has been a catalyst for the Arab Spring. And will no doubt continue to get worse.

Your view is that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world, from fields as diverse as ornithology, to marine biology, to climate science and astronomy, from nations with diverse political landscapes across the world, are all either duped or willingly taking part in a grand scheme to make you pay more taxes and eat vegetarian meals. You are not to be taken seriously if you are so blind as to dismiss the opinions of people who have made their career out of ascertaining the truth, no matter how that affects us. It is not just a few. it's not "popular" as a scientist to agree. These are experts we are talking about, who, from varying disciplines have pooled all their knowledge and research to come to the -and let me stress this again-, overwhelming conclusion that global warming is real, it is current, and it is harmful, and yes

we are the single largest contributor, through our policies of agriculture, use of fossil fuels, and the direct consequences of overpopulation.

 

It's a bitch, I don't like it anymore than you do. But at least I recognise the problem. We can't deal with problems if they are denied.

Nobody talk about the elephant in the room. if we don't look at it, maybe it will go away.

well it is not going away, it is going to get worse. and zealots like yourself will find themselves the fool.

 

Why don't you join the right side, the side with extensive unbiased scientific evidence, gathered over decades from across the globe. Or join the side of evangelical ideologues, telling you that the government and the scientists are out to get you. All involved in some sort of conspiracy for sad recognition and sweet government research grants (oh... wait) that someone thought it more important to overreport the acidity of the water so corporations could pay more taxes, and maybe not pollute as much. That a man studying biodiversity makes up the recordings of a faltering ecosystem, because he just really wanted that trip to the jungles of the amazon.

 

Or perhaps all these learned men felt they needed to collectively invent an impending disaster because they all preferred fiction over science.

 

 

some of what you say shows that you don't even have a clue about how global warming works.

 

There is no conspiracy, except maybe by those big offenders when it comes to climate crime. You know, chemical companies like Dow Chemical or Mining and Drilling companies. If anyone has any benefit by a conspiracy, it would be these lobbies. Sure we can make those dumb uneducated men believe water is dangerous but ****ing up their atmosphere is fine. We'll vilify science so that we can keep them ignorant. And then we'll feed them some ideological bull**** and tell them how great and smart we are. How heroic we are defending against the majority tyranny.

 

Get out of the dark age.

 

I think John Oliver nicely put it:

Edited July 20, 2014 by JFSOCC

[Walsingham]

Well, my position is that the real problem is not people who don't believe in warming.

 

The problem's people who do believe in anthro-warming, and seem to be living in fantasy world where the solution is wind power, or wearing hemp sandals.

 

I don't support pro-Green policies because they're confused, and pointless. If the problem is as serious as they say then they amount to launching surfboards off the boat deck of the Titanic.

 

To be painfully clear: i don't object to the problem. I object to the solution.

[Wrath of Dagon]

JFSOCC, on 19 Jul 2014 - 8:11 PM, said:

 There is a wealth of evidence out there, it has come from more than computer models,

None of what you stated is evidence, and most of it isn't even true. The earth is greener now than a century ago and producing more food than at any time in its existence. Even the IPCC had to admit there's virtually no evidence global warming has anything to do with catastrophic weather events. May be you should read up on that.

 

Edit: Btw, the food shortages and high food prices had to do with the idiotic greeny warmist idea of using food for fuel, i.e. corn ethanol, one of the most destructive ideas ever, as well as other factors. Now the warming lunatics don't want African countries to develop because that would cause an increase in consumption of fossil fuels. If anyone is trying to keep people in the dark ages it's people like you.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[Walsingham]

I'm afraid that it is _precisely_ because the anthro-warming model is so extreme that ONLY measures like enforced de-industrialisation would do any good.

 

That can't/won't/shouldn't happen. So whatever is coming is coming.

[JFSOCC]

 

JFSOCC, on 19 Jul 2014 - 8:11 PM, said:

 

 There is a wealth of evidence out there, it has come from more than computer models,

None of what you stated is evidence, and most of it isn't even true. The earth is greener now than a century ago and producing more food than at any time in its existence. Even the IPCC had to admit there's virtually no evidence global warming has anything to do with catastrophic weather events. May be you should read up on that.

 

Edit: Btw, the food shortages and high food prices had to do with the idiotic greeny warmist idea of using food for fuel, i.e. corn ethanol, one of the most destructive ideas ever, as well as other factors. Now the warming lunatics don't want African countries to develop because that would cause an increase in consumption of fossil fuels. If anyone is trying to keep people in the dark ages it's people like you.

 

The Earth is not greener now than it was a century ago.

http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002-193/002-193.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

And that we are producing more food now than ever is part of the problem. Our methods for such improved production involve cutting down massive forests to build farms, drying out the land, releasing carbon (from the trees) into the atmosphere, and setting grazing farm animals there adds to the soil erosion even further while their farts add to the methane in the atmosphere. We intensify our fishing in the seas to the point where we fish faster than they can create offspring. We heavily fertilise crop areas with chemical fertilizer which builds up ammonia in the soils and drainage water, eventually poisoning the land, exterminating native plants and animals. the use of heavy monoculture for efficient space use destroys pollinators and induces soil erosion, more plant matter dies and is put into the atmosphere. This boom of food is destroying the world on which our agriculture depends.

 

Even the IPCC had to admit? get your facts straight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Fifth_assessment_report

Working Group I report

 

Conclusions of the WG1 report are summarized below:

 

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".[64]

"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years".[65]

Human influence on the climate system is clear.[66] It is extremely likely (95-100% probability)[67] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.[66]

"Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further [global] warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions".[68]

"Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO

2 are stopped".[69]

You know, the exact opposite of what you said.

Corn Ethanol is certainly not the answer, I'm not arguing that one. because it requires yet more farmland, and runs at an energy deficit.

African countries should be careful how they develop, that's to prevent their own collapse. It would certainly be easier for them if the first world adopted some better environmental policies. Actually right now many nations in Africa are trying all kinds of green energy, because it is ideal for a local infrastructure if national infrastructure is underdeveloped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Africa

 

How enlightening a trip to wikipedia can be.

[Walsingham]

But JFSOCC, sorry to be aggressive about this, but your 'team' are telling me that we're all going to die. That same team is asserting that the rate of change is very rapid, and the efefcts will be felt incredibly quickly. Less than half a generation.

 

Your 'team' tells me that either we all work to fix this or the proverbial does the proverbial.

 

We clearly are not going to all work together to fix this. So what _in your opinion_ happens next?

[Meshugger]

This discussion will be redundant the very minute someone invents:

 

1) a car that runs on seawater more efficiently than petrol

2) plastics that are not carbon-based but as strong and cheap to produce

[JFSOCC]

But JFSOCC, sorry to be aggressive about this, but your 'team' are telling me that we're all going to die. That same team is asserting that the rate of change is very rapid, and the efefcts will be felt incredibly quickly. Less than half a generation.

 

Your 'team' tells me that either we all work to fix this or the proverbial does the proverbial.

 

We clearly are not going to all work together to fix this. So what _in your opinion_ happens next?

I don't know. There are many scenarios of what could happen next, with varying degrees of likelihood. When the problem gets worse enough, I do believe the political will to act will emerge. I fear that may be too late to prevent the worst of the damage. In that case you can expect mass extinctions, population collapse and all the social upheaval associated with scarcity and famine (like war) It won't affect all places in the world equally, and some nations may continue for quite some time before feeling the worst of the effects, but it will be felt all around the world regardless.

A car that runs on seawater, while an awesome idea, will not solve problems that are societal, including our consumptive habits. Green technology will be important however, and eventually I think we'll stop calling it green technology and just call it technology, and look back at those idiots of the 21st century and their backwards ways.

It will get worse before it gets better, and it will do a ton of damage before we've resolved the problem.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Even the IPCC had to admit? get your facts straight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Fifth_assessment_report

 

Working Group I report

 

Conclusions of the WG1 report are summarized below:

 

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".[64]

"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years".[65]

Human influence on the climate system is clear.[66] It is extremely likely (95-100% probability)[67] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.[66]

"Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further [global] warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions".[68]

"Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO

2 are stopped".[69]

You know, the exact opposite of what you said.

 

How enlightening a trip to wikipedia can be.

 

I said IPCC admitted there's very little evidence global warming causes catastrophic weather events. Nothing in your quote contradicts that. The last time IPCC claimed that was in AR4, in 2007. This is the same end of the world crap Malthusians have been peddling for over 200 years!

 

Edit : Also, deserts "greening" from rising CO2 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/deserts-greening-from-rising-co2/

Edited July 23, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[Hiro Protagonist]

It's an interesting study isn't it WoD. And the CSIRO is quite the source for Climate activists, at least in Australia.

[JFSOCC]

The Q & A they did seems a bit more well-balanced than the press release:

http://www.csiro.au/portals/media/deserts-greening-from-rising-co2/fertilisationeffectqanda

This is the actual claim:

So the CO2 fertilisation effect means that cover is around 11 per cent greater now than it would have been if CO2 levels were constant. In other words, there are places that have become less green (ie lower cover), but they would have had even lower levels of cover had CO2 not increased.

This does not at all mean that the deserts are greening.

Whilst it may seem that an increase in the uptake of carbon by vegetation would serve to offset the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, the amounts in question are too small to make a significant difference to the overall global picture.

[Mor]

Bit late to the party, still i'd like to chime in with my two cents concerning the linked article in the OP. This part caught my eye was:

 

hypothesized that some U.S. politicians prefer to question the science on climate change because acknowledging the problem could mean having to spend a lot of money to deal with it. So instead they say, "'Don't worry about that, we're not going to increase your taxes.'"

As far as I know creating spins and playing with reasonable doubt to adapt to budgetary constraints is the bread and water of politicians everywhere, not just in the US. Just as well its not something unique to Climate change, but pretty much what happens on regular especially in hard time about issues that most people don't care about.

 

 

As for the issue it self, IMO it has been proven that climate change is real, and needs to be addressed. However, there is no agreed game plan.

 

As far as I know, North America and Europe contribution to the issues, hasn't chaged much in recent decade, with Asia breaking records. It is also my understanding that even if US take one sided drastic measures (which worked so well for them in recent global politics) trying to "soak" up the industrialization process in poorer countries, except burning a lot of money, and potential become less competitive, it wouldn't make a dent in the stats.

[pmp10]

As far as I know, North America and Europe contribution to the issues, hasn't chaged much in recent decade, with Asia breaking records. It is also my understanding that even if US take one sided drastic measures (which worked so well for them in recent global politics) trying to "soak" up the industrialization process in poorer countries, except burning a lot of money, and potential become less competitive, it wouldn't make a dent in the stats.

That's not strictly true as more developed countries often control future technological trends.

If US/Europe can move some industry standards towards less greenhouse gas emission there is a chance that even poorer countries will adapt them.