Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Forget about "Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years"

Heck....it doesn't Matter to Voters NOW....

Pew: Americans the least concerned about climate change | Washington Examiner

And now my friends you understand why all the hate and "Denier" talk from the MMGW Cultists. They have tried everything, from Al Gore to Polar Bears, to we will kill the earth, but none of it is working. So you have to step up the drum beat...make it Illegal to Criticize MMGW, Fire Professors that are "deniers". The war on Freedom must be retched up...damn the Torpedos, full steam ahead.

Sounds like another one of these "means justifying the ends" for some, or is it the other way around??

And it's hardly just Americans with doubts . . . Pew Poll (cited above):

The U.S. was tied with the United Kingdom and only Poland, Israel and Australia scored lower, just by a hair . . .

* * *

At the top in the "global climate change concern index score," compiled in an online survey, were Latin American countries, with Brazil leading the way . . .

* * *

Overall, the survey found that 54 percent overall feel that "global climate change" is a very serious problem.

[newhaul]

And if mmgw isn't real there are millions of jobs that would be lost. That is the reason IMO that they changed from calling it global warming to climate change. So regardless of what the weather does they can claim they are correct. Time will tell what is really happening. We should know for sure in ten years and look back on this thread and get a good chuckle.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

And if mmgw isn't real there are millions of jobs that would be lost. That is the reason IMO that they changed from calling it global warming to climate change.

In 1975, geochemist Wallace Broecker introduced the term “climate change” in an article published by Science. In 1979, a National Academy of Sciences report used the term “global warming” to define increases in the Earth’s average surface temperature, while “climate change” more broadly referred to the numerous effects of this increase, such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification.

+++++++++++++++++++++


You can thank the GOP for the politicization of the term "climate change."
Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House, 2002
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."
" It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming
1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge. "

[SV THIRD DAY]

Gotta love these Scriptures that get debunked....
5 Best Climate Lies of 2015 | TheBlaze.com

Originally Posted by jackdale

You can thank the GOP...Bush White House

If there is one thing you can count on is the left feeling this almost uncontrollable urge to blame things on Bush. In fact the Paris "Scouts Honor" Conference without any legal binding results is Bush's Fault...ha ha ha ha

Two Words...
Tar Sands

Fix you own mess....then come talk to us.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

And if mmgw isn't real there are millions of jobs that would be lost.

MMGW is real; none but the most close-minded (or those living under bridges) seriously deny any more that human activity is having a measurable effect. Most of the (non-cretinous) current debate centers around how much the human contribution is, whether it will seriously affect the future climate, what can we do without causing the economy or western civilization to collapse, and so on.

Realistic solutions haven't yet been tabled, let alone voted on. So no one can yet say "millions of jobs" would be lost. This is a scare tactic used as part of the anti-CC message.

How many US (and Canadian) fossil fuel jobs have been lost this year because of the oil glut and the freakishly low price on crude oil? I'm willing to bet that in the US, positive action to mitigate CC would result in about the same number, and assuming a gradual wind-down, the additional job losses as fossil-fuel production is cut back, would be achieved through packages, buyouts and retirement.

How many jobs in the alternative and renewable energy field would be created? How many would be employed building reactors, or in improvements to public transit?

For the US, taking action on CC could actually be a job win, and many of the secondary changes would make cities more efficient and livable, by modern standards.

Time will tell what is really happening. We should know for sure in ten years and look back on this thread and get a good chuckle.

Or a good cry, at how stupid we were.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

MMGW is real; none but the most close-minded (or those living under bridges) seriously deny any more that human activity is having a measurable effect. Most of the (non-cretinous) current debate centers around how much the human contribution is, whether it will seriously affect the future climate, what can we do without causing the economy or western civilization to collapse, and so on.

Realistic solutions haven't yet been tabled, let alone voted on. So no one can say "millions of jobs" would be lost. This is a scare tactic used as part of the anti-CC message.

How many US (and Canadian) fossil fuel jobs have been lost this year because of the oil glut and the freakishly low price on crude oil? I'm willing to bet that in the US, positive action to mitigate CC would result in about the same number, and assuming a gradual wind-down, the additional job losses as fossil-fuel production is cut back, would be achieved through packages, buyouts and retirement.

How many jobs in the alternative and renewable energy field would be created? How many would be employed building reactors, or in improvements to public transit?

For the US, taking action on CC could actually be a job win, and many of the secondary changes would make cities more efficient and livable, by modern standards.

Or a good cry, at how stupid we were.

Actually I have done all I personaly can do concerning climate change as a whole regardless of what the climate ultimately does . I use biodiesel and I get all my power needs from solar. Yes I do cook with propane. I didn't do any of this as my part of cc however I did it to save money. I also use exclusively mass transit and walking ( again for purely financial reasons.).
In ten years I will laugh at both sides because they will still be arguing.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Happily, I believe you are mistaken. This type of debate between us non-experts on non-scientific forums has been going on for a decade or more. During that time I've seen a marked drop in both the number of intellectually honest skeptics, as well as the number of mindlessly argumentative deniers. This change in numbers is also reflected in national polls in the US done by professional polling agencies. I'm also seeing changes in the rhetoric by Evangelical/Fundamentalist religious leaders, who I think were often instrumental in leading their 'flocks' down misguided paths. It is because of the 'progress' that I've seen in these discussions that has persuaded me not to give up presenting the scientific side of the argument.

As others have said, Mike, you have a remarkable talent for presenting challenging points of view in a very gracious manner. Props to you.

I truly wish you were correct SailOar, but this comment our friend here is illustrates why I think our societies are incapable of doing anything until the problems become so dire as to be, to use a loaded term, undeniable .

Strange, perception is everything.

I'm seeing an ever increasing number of former alarmists coming to their senses and realising what a con it all is.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

For the US, taking action on CC could actually be a job win, and many of the secondary changes would make cities more efficient and livable, by modern standards.

Or a good cry, at how stupid we were.

Or we let Canada do it first and watch and see what happens...

How about fixing your own house before telling the rest of the world what to do as Eco Imperialists.

[newhaul]

Global warming meanwhile the snow keeps falling on about a third of the northern hemisphere.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

If there is one thing you can count on is the left feeling this almost uncontrollable urge to blame things on Bush. In fact the Paris "Scouts Honor" Conference without any legal binding results is Bush's Fault...ha ha ha ha

Two Words...
Tar Sands

Fix you own mess....then come talk to us.

Do you have any idea what the Government of Alberta is doing?

Climate Leadership | Alberta.ca

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Gotta love these Scriptures that get debunked....
5 Best Climate Lies of 2015 | TheBlaze.com

Rich uses a gold market shill's web site for his science.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Do you have any idea what the Government of Alberta is doing?

Climate Leadership | Alberta.ca

Or Ontario: https://www.ontario.ca/page/climate-change

Actually, there are many US states and municipalities that have taken significant actions.

[Reefmagnet]

US and Canadian car sales volumes suggest the gfc has had more good for climate change than alarmist rantings.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-...TD-550x331.png

http://dailycommercialnews.com/PageF...e-1006416.jpeg

http://dailycommercialnews.com/PageF...e-1006415.jpeg

http://dailycommercialnews.com/PageF...e-1006414.jpeg

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

MMGW is real; none but the most close-minded (or those living under bridges) seriously deny any more that human activity is having a measurable effect. Most of the (non-cretinous) current debate centers around how much the human contribution is, whether it will seriously affect the future climate, what can we do without causing the economy or western civilization to collapse, and so on.

Or to put it another way. The only real issues are:

1. Are the model predictions of the warming resulting from human CO2 emissions accurate (i.e. what is the real Climate Sensitivity to CO2 and the associated feedbacks) since these are what drives the whole scare.

2. How significant is that climate sensitivity compared to natural climate variability?

3. how catastrophic would a possible 2-3 degree change in global average temperatures really be?


Given that :

1. the last 20 years has proven that the answer to Question 1 is a resounding "NO"

2. No one knows the answer to the second question and if the answer is "insignificant" we could just as easily be facing future cooling.

3. No one knows the answer to the third question, but it is fairly certain than warming of that extent would be better than cooling so a lot depends on No 2.

the big question is whether the proposed draconian solutions are in the best interests of mankind.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

the big question is whether the proposed draconian solutions are in the best interests of mankind.

What proposed draconian solutions, specifically?