I won’t waste precious time debating established science with deniers.
A typical deflection. You can't address the complex issue head-on, so you scream "denier!" I've come to expect as much from members of the Global Warming Enthusiast Club™. Unlike you, I will make some clear statements on the issue:
1. The Earth has warmed about .6 degrees centigrade over the past century. This is not abnormal when compared the to the total climate record. In fact, the climate has been far warmer (and colder) than it is now...as much as 12 degrees in either direction.
2. The evidence to date shows a good deal of support for the greenhouse effect theory. However, the modeling has been completely and utterly wrong on predicting even near-term changes. The amount humans contribute to warming is still unknown.
3. Sea level rise is within the normal range. Here again, the modeling has been completely, almost hilariously wrong.
4. Climate and weather related deaths are down 90+% over the past century as our technology has improved.
5. The intensity and frequency of major storms, droughts, etc. has not varied beyond the historical norm.
6. There are many variables for which we cannot account re: climate. Some are "known unknowns" and some are "unknown unknowns."
7. In the U.S., air quality is better than it was 25 years ago, and carbon emissions are down significantly (especially per capita).
The above is a brief description of the problem. The Earth is warming and humans are likely causing some of it. It is not in any sense a "climate emergency" or "crisis." New York is not going to be underwater in 50 years. Storms are not killing more people. Climate deaths are not up. What we have here is a problem that requires further study and sober analysis, not hysteria.
So we agree...global warming is a problem, particularly if the warming accelerates. Moreover, no one is claiming the burning of fossil fuels is good for the environment. So, we again agree that we need to work on solutions. A long-term plan to gradually transition from fossil fuels is needed, one that doesn't actually harm people through severe economic disruption. We can innovate our way to sensible solutions, from alternative energy to carbon capture and the like.
But you'll notice, we're not talking about that. We're talking about remaking our political and economic systems and global wealth and power redistribution. That is why we see insane "solutions" that won't actually address warming or the overall environment. It's why we see political whores and elites acting like they do.
George Orwell was wrong, we didn’t end up with “big brother” feeding us a fabricated world of fiction. After all, sincere, truthful and scientific answers to our questions are at our fingertips on Wikipedia; journalists the world over report the truth as best they can etc. Instead, we’ve got thousands of “little brothers” like you on social media avidly spreading politically-inspired lies.
Get a load of this guy. He thinks Wikipedia is a good neutral source of information, even though its co-founder himself says it's now a propaganda source.
I’ll summarise your awfully long paragraph describing yourself, thus: “I’m just another Republican voter.” It’s amusing how you have absorbed your political party’s orthodoxy into your personal value system.
It's amusing that you have that backwards.
About “hypocrisy” and whataboutism: one cannot practice environmentalism in our disaster capitalist context.
There you have it. I knew you were a radical. You are also absolutely wrong. Properly-regulated capitalism is the one force that can lead to a cleaner environment, just as it is the one force that has lifted millions out of poverty and despair.
That is like walking East on a train that is travelling West. Without scientists and activists, there would be no awareness of the problems and issues. You attack the messenger to deflect from the message. Nothing new, every activist throughout history was insulted, spat on, assaulted, imprisoned, banished, murdered, executed etc. Still, you will be glad to hear that this week, an indigenous Amazonian girl who spoke about the environment crisis at the Cop26 meeting has received insults and death threats from Brazilian Bolsonaro supporters (conservatives like you). After all, she’s a hypocrite because she probably flew to Glasgow on an airplane.
First, don't compare me with those who make death threats. That is out of bounds. But finally, I attack the messenger when the messenger doesn't f*cking know anything. The people we're talking about are often hollow media creations (Thunberg), political whores (Gore), or unbelievably privileged assholes with their own agendas (Chaaahhles). An Amazonian girl? Perfect example. What are her qualifications, that's she's indigenous? What the hell does she know about anthropogenic global warming theory? No, I'll tell you why she was there: To support a radical agenda by making the issue not logical, but emotional. She's there to have the media take notice of how Evil Western Capitalists and Racist Conservatives are destroying her home. Look! Just like Greta! She's so sad! Listen to her in her righteous outrage!
A typical deflection. You can't address the complex issue head-on, so you scream "denier!" I've come to expect as much from members of the Global Warming Enthusiast Club™. Unlike you, I will make some clear statements on the issue:
Pardon me, but I skipped over your cruddy global warming arguments. I just don’t debate science deniers. Sad pathetic man (most likely a male). Anachronistic. Cardboard cut-out Republican voter. I see that the right-wing think-tank propaganda financed by the sons of racist segregationists, and the psychopathic-Murdoch media supported by fossil fuel interests in bed with the Arabs, and the oil and coal owned politicians, were well worth it.
Anyone who studied design history will have noticed that this seal by Jony Ive references the work of the great nineteenth Century designer and socialist, William Morris. Do a search for “William Morris graphic design” for examples of the kind of work that inspired Ive.
A typical deflection. You can't address the complex issue head-on, so you scream "denier!" I've come to expect as much from members of the Global Warming Enthusiast Club™. Unlike you, I will make some clear statements on the issue:
Pardon me, but I skipped over your cruddy global warming arguments. I just don’t debate science deniers. Sad pathetic man (most likely a male). Anachronistic. Cardboard cut-out Republican voter. I see that the right-wing think-tank propaganda financed by the sons of racist segregationists, and the psychopathic-Murdoch media supported by fossil fuel interests in bed with the Arabs, and the oil and coal owned politicians, were well worth it.
I’ll leave it to others to decide who is being reasonable here. I think it’s pretty clear I was willing to engage you in the discussion. The operative word being “was.” Please go ahead and feel free to continue screaming at the sky.
1. The Earth has warmed about .6 degrees centigrade over the past century. This is not abnormal when compared the to the total climate record. In fact, the climate has been far warmer (and colder) than it is now...as much as 12 degrees in either direction.
2. The evidence to date shows a good deal of support for the greenhouse effect theory. However, the modeling has been completely and utterly wrong on predicting even near-term changes. The amount humans contribute to warming is still unknown.
3. Sea level rise is within the normal range. Here again, the modeling has been completely, almost hilariously wrong.
4. Climate and weather related deaths are down 90+% over the past century as our technology has improved.
5. The intensity and frequency of major storms, droughts, etc. has not varied beyond the historical norm.
6. There are many variables for which we cannot account re: climate. Some are "known unknowns" and some are "unknown unknowns."
7. In the U.S., air quality is better than it was 25 years ago, and carbon emissions are down significantly (especially per capita).
1) The temperature had been higher in the past, more like a million years ago. That's a fact. Literally no one disputes that. The issue is you're not looking at the history of climate cycles - the warming is not part of the natural cycle for climate. It does not follow the pattern of what is expected with all the factors known to influence climate.
4) It's like saying that earthquake-related deaths are down because we built earthquake resistant buildings. It has nothing to do with earthquakes being less or more frequent.
6) Yes, there are still some variables not yet known but this is literally what we know right now and the variables are still powerful factors that contribute to our global warming. If a volcano erupts and cools the earth, that will change the models but the fact is that is "unknown" and you cannot use that as an argument against global warming. The cooling effect is temporary and we must look at the long term effects.
Your arguments are literally regurgitation of deceptions and disinformation that I often hear from deniers. The climate change is a well established fact and there is NO doubt that we're contributing to it.
Comments
A typical deflection. You can't address the complex issue head-on, so you scream "denier!" I've come to expect as much from members of the Global Warming Enthusiast Club™. Unlike you, I will make some clear statements on the issue:
1. The Earth has warmed about .6 degrees centigrade over the past century. This is not abnormal when compared the to the total climate record. In fact, the climate has been far warmer (and colder) than it is now...as much as 12 degrees in either direction.
2. The evidence to date shows a good deal of support for the greenhouse effect theory. However, the modeling has been completely and utterly wrong on predicting even near-term changes. The amount humans contribute to warming is still unknown.
3. Sea level rise is within the normal range. Here again, the modeling has been completely, almost hilariously wrong.
4. Climate and weather related deaths are down 90+% over the past century as our technology has improved.
5. The intensity and frequency of major storms, droughts, etc. has not varied beyond the historical norm.
6. There are many variables for which we cannot account re: climate. Some are "known unknowns" and some are "unknown unknowns."
7. In the U.S., air quality is better than it was 25 years ago, and carbon emissions are down significantly (especially per capita).
The above is a brief description of the problem. The Earth is warming and humans are likely causing some of it. It is not in any sense a "climate emergency" or "crisis." New York is not going to be underwater in 50 years. Storms are not killing more people. Climate deaths are not up. What we have here is a problem that requires further study and sober analysis, not hysteria.
So we agree...global warming is a problem, particularly if the warming accelerates. Moreover, no one is claiming the burning of fossil fuels is good for the environment. So, we again agree that we need to work on solutions. A long-term plan to gradually transition from fossil fuels is needed, one that doesn't actually harm people through severe economic disruption. We can innovate our way to sensible solutions, from alternative energy to carbon capture and the like.
But you'll notice, we're not talking about that. We're talking about remaking our political and economic systems and global wealth and power redistribution. That is why we see insane "solutions" that won't actually address warming or the overall environment. It's why we see political whores and elites acting like they do.
Get a load of this guy. He thinks Wikipedia is a good neutral source of information, even though its co-founder himself says it's now a propaganda source.
It's amusing that you have that backwards.
There you have it. I knew you were a radical. You are also absolutely wrong. Properly-regulated capitalism is the one force that can lead to a cleaner environment, just as it is the one force that has lifted millions out of poverty and despair.
First, don't compare me with those who make death threats. That is out of bounds. But finally, I attack the messenger when the messenger doesn't f*cking know anything. The people we're talking about are often hollow media creations (Thunberg), political whores (Gore), or unbelievably privileged assholes with their own agendas (Chaaahhles). An Amazonian girl? Perfect example. What are her qualifications, that's she's indigenous? What the hell does she know about anthropogenic global warming theory? No, I'll tell you why she was there: To support a radical agenda by making the issue not logical, but emotional. She's there to have the media take notice of how Evil Western Capitalists and Racist Conservatives are destroying her home. Look! Just like Greta! She's so sad! Listen to her in her righteous outrage!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelmscott_Press
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Where's the source for ".6 degrees over the past century?"
2) Excessive production of gases due to human activities are obvious and they are potent greenhouse gases causing increase in temperature.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
3) Yes, they rise and no, the modeling is not "wrong" - it is literally within expected forecasts.
Source: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
4) It's like saying that earthquake-related deaths are down because we built earthquake resistant buildings. It has nothing to do with earthquakes being less or more frequent.
6) Yes, there are still some variables not yet known but this is literally what we know right now and the variables are still powerful factors that contribute to our global warming. If a volcano erupts and cools the earth, that will change the models but the fact is that is "unknown" and you cannot use that as an argument against global warming. The cooling effect is temporary and we must look at the long term effects.
Your arguments are literally regurgitation of deceptions and disinformation that I often hear from deniers. The climate change is a well established fact and there is NO doubt that we're contributing to it.