Weather Network ****s on Breitbart climate article

[Beantown]

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/africa/sudan-climate-change/

It's going to keep getting worse and worse. More areas that will become infertile and dry.

No doubt our next wars will be fought over fresh water reserves...

 

[Stoked]

It's the same battle/problem. We should be uniting rather that discussing if moving off fossil fuels is the right decision.

It shouldn't even be a discussion.

Is there anyone here that is against moving off fossil fuels? Anyone? If so I'd like to see it.

 

[Keefe]

I agree that we should be moving that way. Through methodical improvements and innovations across the board. I'm not for just a mad rush approach that cripples industries.

Please explain who you mean when you say "crippling industries." Provide a few examples of the companies who would be paralyzed if we saw more aggressive alternative energy regulations, standards and/or laws.

 

[Boris]

When a neutral observer sees the astronomical amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere in the past 200 years, the first hypothesis will be "that should have an effect on global climate". You then look to see if that's the case, and what do you know, a mountain of evidence that shows an unmistakable trend of warming that coincides with the carbon dumping.

The side that believes green house gases are contributing to the green house effect is not the one being emotional. You are. I understand that people are worried about the effect of regulation on economics, and I sympathize with those who see alternate paths to deal with the issue. I have zero sympathy for the deniers who insist that the world fits their preferences.

I have no desire for climate change to be true. It's such a mess. I wish it weren't. But it is what it is. We can discuss what to do about it. However, the random linking is intellectually disingenuous and counter-productive.

False.

A neutral observer would question the data for integrity. Why is it the hadCRUT3 data has gone through 2 cycles of thawing an freezing and thawing an freezing since 1878? Why is there no correlation during this time to global temperatures? Is the data even reflective, or are heat island locations skewing current temperatures? What are the humidity changes? Can a 100% increase in co2 be significant enough to dramatically alter the equivalense of a 3 percent change in humidity?

 

[Stoked]

Please explain who you mean when you say "crippling industries." Provide a few examples of the companies who would be paralyzed if we saw more aggressive alternative energy regulations, standards and/or laws.

Massive cuts to carbon emissions all at once would cripple the coal industry and industrial factories.

Yes we need to get off coal, yes we need to improve air quality, but you work your way into it. It doesn't just happen over night.

I have long advocated increasing research into alt energy sources and getting off oil. For example requiring all new semis to run off CNG and a scale of how long old rigs should run. Making hydrogen fuel cells a working tech for personal automobiles.

Push for improvements and cleaner industry but do it at a manageable pace. That's what I am saying. There is a balance.

For the record: I am not even a climate change denier. I think it clearly happens. I question how much of it is our fault and I doubt the impending disaster scenarios pitched in some publications but it clearly is happening. It is an issue.

 

[♪alt13]

My carbon footprint is pretty low:

My house runs on 100% renewable energy

I compost/garden

Shop at farmers markets

I take an electric train into work

I don't eat red meat.

Define low. Low in comparison to other Americans? people from developed countries? Humans? Per person consumption that would keep us under IPCC recommended limits?

It"s great that you try and all but if we all lived like you we would still be facing global warming. To solve it we would all have to do what you do and sacrifice much more. Developed nations would need to forgo a lot of development. It's going to happen it's only a question of how much and how soon.

 

[Stoked]

Also how do we get other countries, like India and China, to truly commit to improving the climate with the more climate oriented countries?

America can improve all day long, we should, but as long as other countries are polluting for all they are worth the effect of anything we do is greatly diminished right?

 

[Boris]

For those bitching about climate change....why are you against improving air/water quality? Especially since the majority of you live in Utah.

Somebody please address that question.

Cause we want solar panels that fill the earth with hydrochloric acid during polysilicone production, create massive amounts of hazardous an toxic waste, an then fill are landfills up after there 10 to 12 tear lifespan.

 

[Red]

The President Elects choice to lead the EPA doesn't give me much hope about this new admin pushing alt energy sources. Scott Pruitt the OK attorney general

Another appointment. Another step backwards.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-trump-pruitt-epa-climate-change-20161207-story.html

 

[Stoked]

Another appointment. Another step backwards.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-trump-pruitt-epa-climate-change-20161207-story.html

I don't agree that all the appointees are step backwards but I feel this one is. From what I know anyways.

 

[Red]

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/scott-pruitt-stenographer-oil-gas-industry-article-1.2902255

 

[LogGrad98]

The articles you took 30 seconds to find on Google were trash. Additionally, you did not respond to Dalamon's rebuttal. But then again why would you (please refer to the 30 second Google search part).

One of them is a survey of engineers working in the oil and mining industries who say they don't buy anthropogenic climate change. kul. Can you please find me an article of what dental hygienists think? Thanks in advance.

The second is an op-ed that questions the 97% figure. Oookay. I guess that's something we can talk about if I wasn't sure you'd ignore any rebuttals.

Like I said. It is not my opinion. The vasy majority of people who study this subject seem to agree that climate change is happening, and that human activity has something to do with it. It's a hypothesis that makes sense. Why would humans transforming atmospheric make-up to that of the Triassic era not change the climate to the matching conditions? And looking at the actual data, it seems very reasonable to accept those conclusions, given what we know so far.

Please post the peer reviewed proof that the "vast majority" agree. I posted a rebuttal you that which actually cites polls and studies. You and dal just keep saying "nuh uh" then attacking personally. I have read several of the pieces cited that supposedly support the 97% claims that are way sketchier than an "op-ed" piece. Which, by the way, is almost the only source of the 97% claims to begin with...op-ed pieces. So since you agree with a particular op-ed piece it's valid but if you don't agree with it then it isn't. Yeah ok. Standards leftist tactic...our opinion=truth.

 

[LogGrad98]

At first I was bummed cuz Log (predictably) didnt address my rebuttal--

but Siro is just taking him straight to the woodshed rn and frankly I am here for it

For the record I have to go out of my way to read your posts since I put you on ignore. Your tireless defense of the left regardless of actual thought makes most of not all of your posts not just highly predictable but nigh unreadable. I'll go back and see what you said.

 

[fishonjazz]

Watching Bean freak out over this is entertaining. I don't even want to really discuss it with him at this point, just poke him with a stick.

Freak out? He posted a few times about how treating the planet better is a good idea in his opinion. (I think it's a good idea too btw)

 

[fishonjazz]

Define low. Low in comparison to other Americans? people from developed countries? Humans? Per person consumption that would keep us under IPCC recommended limits?

It"s great that you try and all but if we all lived like you we would still be facing global warming. To solve it we would all have to do what you do and sacrifice much more. Developed nations would need to forgo a lot of development. It's going to happen it's only a question of how much and how soon.

So what is your point?
Imo everyone doing a little better, but not perfect, is better than nothing.

 

[fishonjazz]

Also how do we get other countries, like India and China, to truly commit to improving the climate with the more climate oriented countries?

America can improve all day long, we should, but as long as other countries are polluting for all they are worth the effect of anything we do is greatly diminished right?

I think other countries are.
I know China was one of many many countries who signed some agreement (I always forget the name of it)..... the one trump (the usa) doesn't want to be a part of.

 

[NAOS]

Please post the peer reviewed proof that the "vast majority" agree. I posted a rebuttal you that which actually cites polls and studies. You and dal just keep saying "nuh uh" then attacking personally. I have read several of the pieces cited that supposedly support the 97% claims that are way sketchier than an "op-ed" piece. Which, by the way, is almost the only source of the 97% claims to begin with...op-ed pieces. So since you agree with a particular op-ed piece it's valid but if you don't agree with it then it isn't. Yeah ok. Standards leftist tactic...our opinion=truth.

that's also a standard 'Rightist' tactic. Kinda funny if you disagree with that. It's (arguably) a tactic that the Right perfected first (in modern American history), and something to which the Left has had to adapt. Unfortunately, we're all in that ditch now.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Define low. Low in comparison to other Americans? people from developed countries? Humans? Per person consumption that would keep us under IPCC recommended limits?

It"s great that you try and all but if we all lived like you we would still be facing global warming. To solve it we would all have to do what you do and sacrifice much more. Developed nations would need to forgo a lot of development. It's going to happen it's only a question of how much and how soon.

You know what he means by low, don't be a dick.

 

[♪alt13]

Massive cuts to carbon emissions all at once would cripple the coal industry and industrial factories.

Yes we need to get off coal, yes we need to improve air quality, but you work your way into it. It doesn't just happen over night.

I have long advocated increasing research into alt energy sources and getting off oil. For example requiring all new semis to run off CNG and a scale of how long old rigs should run. Making hydrogen fuel cells a working tech for personal automobiles.

Push for improvements and cleaner industry but do it at a manageable pace. That's what I am saying. There is a balance.

For the record: I am not even a climate change denier. I think it clearly happens. I question how much of it is our fault and I doubt the impending disaster scenarios pitched in some publications but it clearly is happening. It is an issue.

Have you seen this yet? Hydrogen fuel cell semi. It's supposed to get something like 800 miles on a single fueling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9AmbJBGBBo

 

[♪alt13]

You know what he means by low, don't be a dick.

I'm not trying to be a dick, just a realist. We can try to be pragmatic, set goals, and do what we can but we should avoid the eco-panic attack rhetoric. It doesn't help.