jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (133 posts)

Energy Department office bans the phrase "climate change"

  1. promisem profile image95
    promisemposted 3 months ago

    It also banned the phrase "emissions reduction".

    I'm hopeful that the Trump administration will soon ban other stupid phrases, such as "freedom of expression".

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/e … ned-236655

    1. abwilliams profile image83
      abwilliamsposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Good, let's just call it the Weather, after all, that's what it has always been..... the Weather.
      Didn't have Climate Change bulletin boards in elementary school. There were Weather Boards; some days (even way back then) it was hot and sunny, some days it was windy, other days rainy and sometimes it was rainy and windy.  There were some cold days, some icy days and some snow days (no more snow days though, once we moved to Florida)
      The Weather changed regularly, so the Weather Board never went unchanged, as would be the case today.....Imagine that.

      1. promisem profile image95
        promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Climate change is a science concept and not a weather forecast. As NASA says:

        "Climate change is a change in the usual weather found in a place. This could be a change in how much rain a place usually gets in a year. Or it could be a change in a place's usual temperature for a month or season.

        "Climate change is also a change in Earth's climate. This could be a change in Earth's usual temperature. Or it could be a change in where rain and snow usually fall on Earth.

        "Weather can change in just a few hours. Climate takes hundreds or even millions of years to change."

        1. ahorseback profile image45
          ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          ".............Climate Change is a science concept "..............There ,you said it !
          Explain this then ,  Why is it that traditional science  always  proved by disproving a theory ?         

          Maybe that's why "conceptions"   by  environmental activist non-scientists are so much of a hot button  issue.

          Those of us in the real world are still waiting for a scientists  who isn't apparently trained by Al Gore .

          1. Paul Wingert profile image80
            Paul Wingertposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            <personal attack>

      2. crankalicious profile image86
        crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Never underestimate the value of edumacation.

        1. abwilliams profile image83
          abwilliamsposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          I never underestimate the power of indoctri-cation.

          1. crankalicious profile image86
            crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Is that what they call science nowadays? Man, never underestimate the power of homeschooling.

          2. Dean Traylor profile image83
            Dean Traylorposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Didn't the governor of Florida do this, too? And what's it going to accomplish? You  can deny the words but you can't stop reality.  Afterall, climate change doesn't care about politics.

            1. promisem profile image95
              promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              I'm not surprised that the Trump administration is against climate change policies.

              I'm surprised and concerned at how far they are going in banning the use of simple words and phrases.

              It's the sort of thing that dictatorships do.

              1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
                Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                So you start with a lie because no one banned any phrases and then you jump to using the lie to liken Trump to a dictator. Typical straw man argument, liberal tactic and reasoning that no person without TDS would ever buy. And you don't even have a clue how sophomoric you sound - I think you'd be wise not to use your real identity. If you cared about peoples' impression of you you shouldn't  want anyone to know who said the things you do.

                1. promisem profile image95
                  promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  My name is Scott Bateman. You can see my name at the top of my profile page and on every article I write.

                  I'm a business owner, journalist and former media executive. You can find just about everything you want to know about me online.

                  Who are you and what do you do for a living?

                  1. ahorseback profile image45
                    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Media exec?      That may be the give away

                  2. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
                    Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Deleted

              2. Dean Traylor profile image83
                Dean Traylorposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Promisem, interesting you bright up this question. Currently ine of three books I'm reading is 1984. I just finished the chapter about newspeak. Who knew that this would be spot on in this day and age. We tend to forget how critical rhetoric can be.

                1. promisem profile image95
                  promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Great book. It's amazing how it is still so accurate.

      3. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Here's what I know:

        I'm not a climate scientist.

        If I were to examine all the raw data available related to climate change, in truth, I probably wouldn't have the expertise to make the necessary calculations or draw a reliably accurate conclusion from the most complex aspects of it.

        97% of published climate-change scientists, who do have the expertise to draw reliable conclusions from the data, agree that human activity is causing climate change.

        The conclusion of 97% of published climate-change scientists, is more likely to be accurate than a conclusion I can draw myself directly from the data.

        The gas and oil industry is heavily promoting the message that human activity is not causing climate change.

        The gas and oil industry (and any scientist they sponsor) have every reason to lie about the cause of climate-change.

        97% of published climate-change scientists have no good reason to lie about climate-change.

        It's reasonable to accept a conclusion that is the most likely to be accurate, from sources that have the least reason to lie about it.

        Therefore I accept the conclusion of 97% of published climate-change scientists, over the message promoted by you, the oil and gas industry, and any scientists they sponsor.

        1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
          Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          You should stick with "If I were to examine all the raw data available related to climate change, in truth, I probably wouldn't have the expertise to make the necessary calculations or draw a reliably accurate conclusion from the most complex aspects of it. " and leave it there because the rest of what you said shows you don't even have the expertise to know what is truth and what is propaganda. You have no idea how that was "proven" to be 97% and if you did you wouldn't be heralding 97% as if you knew something. It's a left wing talking point, a lie and nothing more - if you are so gullible as to believe that 97% thing without any investigation I wouldn't put any stock in anything you say because “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.

          Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.

          Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea how that was "proven," but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.
          One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook. But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

          Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

          The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

          “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

          —Dr. Richard Tol

          “That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

          —Dr. Craig Idso

          “Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

          —Dr. Nir Shaviv

          “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

          —Dr. Nicola Scafetta

          Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

          You really want to make an informed decision about this phony 97% people on the left like Obama and Carey (known habitual liars by the way) throw around without knowing anything about it?  Don't take my word for it, read this, part 1 and part 2: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstei … 8098403f9f

          Now are you going to act like an adult and admit you were misguided or are you going to get offended at my frankness and join the liberals' mantra when they've been busted and call me a troll?

          Whichever, it will tell much more about you than it ever could about me.

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            The following organizations have concluded human activity is causing climate change*.

            In relation to climate change, I trust them more than I trust the oil and gas industry, and you. It's really that simple.

            Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
            Academy of Sciences Malaysia
            Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
            African Academy of Sciences
            American Association for the Advancement of Science
            American Chemical Society
            American Geophysical Union
            American Meteorological Society
            American Physical Society
            American Quaternary Association
            American Society of Agronomy
            American Statistical Association
            Australian Academy of Sciences
            Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
            Brazilian Academy of Sciences
            Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
            Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
            Caribbean Academy of Sciences
            Chinese Academy of Sciences
            Crop Science Society of America
            Environmental Protection Agency
            European Academy of Sciences and Arts
            European Federation of Geologists
            European Geosciences Union
            European Science Foundation
            French Academy of Sciences
            Geological Society of America
            Geological Society of London
            German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
            Indian National Science Academy
            Indonesian Academy of Sciences
            Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
            InterAcademy Council
            International Association for Great Lakes Research
            International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
            International Union for Quaternary Research
            International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
            National Aeronautics and Space Administration
            National Association of Geoscience Teachers
            National Center for Atmospheric Research
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
            Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
            Royal Irish Academy
            Royal Society of Canada
            Royal Society of the United Kingdom
            Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
            Russian Academy of Science
            Science Council of Japan
            Soil Science Society of America
            The Geological Society of America
            The Institution of Engineers Australia
            U.S. National Academy of Sciences
            United Nations IPCC
            World Meteorological Organization

            *not an exhaustive list

            1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
              Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Ok wikipediaman. This is just another way of obfuscating the facts. I can list the studies that have repeatedly debunked the 97% figure (aka a lie).  However, it's more telling just to examine your claim "The following organizations have concluded human activity is causing climate change"

              Did NASA and the rest somehow miss the last several periods of worldwide glaciation (climate change in its most severe form) that occurred before humans occupied the planet?

              A list without scrutiny and examination of the details involved on how those statements from scientific organisations were derived and why is nothing but propaganda just like the 97% crap that is thrown around.

              So your best defense is to chuck out a list and ignore all the debunking of "97% scientists", sounds like a pretty convenient thing to do when you really know nothing about anything.

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Yes, a list of international scientific organizations and science academies know more about climate change than you do.

                I'm sorry you don't like that, but there's nothing I can do about it.

                I don't need to debate the subject with you. The world's leading scientific organizations say you are wrong. I believe them. There's nothing to debate.

                The fact you are apparently unable to "act like an adult" and accept that a list of international scientific organizations know more about climate change than you do without resorting to name calling, tells me much more about you than it ever could about me.

                1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
                  Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Acting like an adult is questioning any such list with no background information. Same goes for all the studies debunking the 97% crap. Any child can blindly and uninformedly copy a list, an adult would question such before putting his name to it. I dare you to even give me one statement from 5 of these organizations that states "they have concluded human activity is causing climate change."

                  Please spell out those statements I guarantee none of which you have ever even read and you probably won't even now take the time to dig them up.

                  Accepting a list at face value and saying it's because the list is the world's leading scientific organizations is nothing but repeating propaganda. When even the statement given with the list "The following organizations have concluded human activity is causing climate change" is a lie as I have shown, climate change was evident long before humans even existed doesn't open your eyes that this is propaganda you are being the child.

                  You obviously don't know how the game is played. Just as with the 97% crapola, these are talking points and you can only know anything about their accuracy if you dig. To start with most of these organizations don't even research climate change and so may simply adopt the statement of or acquiesce to organizations that do.

                  Then there is The Fact  that those that are involved in climate research need funding from governments and other agencies to conduct their research so any one that says climate change may not be caused by humans will not get the funding sources as this whole manmade global warming fraud is backed by governments worldwide so as to raise your taxes and get more global government control over our lives.

                  Children are taught to memorize lists because they are not skilled or wise enough to come up with their own opinion and well if that is where you are coming from how can you say you are the adult? That's all you have to offer even after I have debunked  all you have said from the start? What other lists have you memorized or have you run out of propaganda?

                  1. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Being an adult means not pretending to know more about climate-change than multiple scientific organizations, just because you have read some things on the internet.

                    What do those organizations say about climate change? Look it up. Why look up something that doesn't support your argument? Objectivity. Try it, it's good for you.

                    Here's one of the statements from those organizations to start you off: "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver". If you're not clear on exactly what that means, ask the organizations who published it to clarify it for you. I'm sure most of them have Twitter accounts and are easy to find.

                    Listen to yourself. You are suggesting that all of the people, in all of the organizations listed, are involved in a worldwide conspiracy. And you believe that's more likely than the the oil and gas industry simply denying climate change to protect their profits. Let me guess, you also believe the scientific link between cigarettes and cancer is a conspiracy, and the tobacco industry wasn't just denying the link to protect their profits, right?

                    Children also learn that when they need their appendix taken out, they go to a qualified surgeon in a hospital. They don't rely on Dave their neighbor who claims to know more than the doctors because he read something about it on the internet.

                    When children fly somewhere, they understand they are relying on the knowledge and skills of a qualified pilot. They don't rely on Karen from seat E15, who says she is a better pilot, because she once read an article on how to fly a plane.

                    When it comes to climate-change, I prefer to rely on the expertise and knowledge of the world's scientific community, rather than someone called "Don't Taze Me Bro" from an internet forum, who claims he knows better than all the scientific organizations who say he is wrong.

                    Some might call that old-fashioned. I call it sensible. Once again, I'm sorry that you don't like the fact I am sensible. There's really nothing I can do about it.

        2. Dean Traylor profile image83
          Dean Traylorposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Actually Don W it's not 97% ...it's grown to 98.

          1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
            Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Deleted

      4. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
        Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Typical fake news post by you promisem. Despite the Politico headline which is absolutely a lie, "the phrases have not been banned outright, but are reportedly part of a list of climate-related terms that are being avoided in light of the Trump administration's attitudes on climate change." that's from the HILL, not exactly fox news. Promisem you never fail to disappoint me, is it a disease with you or are you actually the one writing left wing talking points?

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Jim Harper was trying to claim this as fact back in 2013 in Florida without any evidence whatsoever.  Then, it was aimed at Gov. Rich Scott, which time has tested to be untrue.  Recycled story but changed it up again, this happens a lot.  No evidence! 

          Logically, how could anyone ban those terms and still be able to communicate professionally or otherwise?  I guess it could happen in a false reality.  Unbelievable, but I have to admit its a pretty funny distraction from reality. 

          Politico is kind of creepy at times.  Dang!

        2. promisem profile image95
          promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Bro, it's so nice to hear from you again! How are you? How is the family?

          You must be referring to The Hill article with the title Energy Department tells staff not to use phrase 'climate change'.

        3. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
          Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          There is a street in Atlanta that is notorious for hookers.  After years of trying to drive them out, the city finally came up with a solution.  They changed the name of the street. 

          Same mentality at work here.

          (And BTW, Politico has "lied" its way to 12 Pulitzers.)

          1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
            Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            So let me understand, because Politico has won pulitzers then it is OK that they run a headline, "Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change", that is a lie? Yeah, with reasoning like that it's no wonder you get everything wrong like saying that  Trump "was only elected by 30% of registered voters. That means most people did not want him as president." ~YOUR WORDS

            You ran away from that one when I pointed out that was a lie. Remember? It was only 32 hours ago when I pointed out on this hubpage https://hubpages.com/politics/Trump-Sti … My-Support

            "There Cochran goes again with misinformation, basically another lie. You can always count on her to lie. The truth is only 30% of registered voters voted for Hillarity too because 40 % of the registered voters DON'T VOTE. So according to Cochran, the liar, when she says "That means most people did not want him as president. So when he talks about just keeping campaign promises ... most Americans don't want him to." that statement should also apply to Hillarity. But it doesn't apply to either candidate because like everything Cochran spews it is a lie.

            Over 90 Million Eligible Voters Didn’t Vote in the 2016 Presidential Election. Hillarity and Trump basically split the popular vote. Clinton received 65.84 million votes, or 48.1 percent of the total popular vote. Trump received 62.97 million votes, or 46.0 percent. So both candidates got roughly 30% of the registered voters and I'll say it again BECAUSE 40% DON'T VOTE. If I didn't vote I would be offended by someone saying what I want or don't want. How would they ever know my business? No honest person can or would say the registered voters who didn't vote wanted one candidate or the other, not based on the percentage of registered voters who voted for either candidate when 40% of them didn't even vote. To think otherwise is failed reasoning at best and to say it, that is pure deception, intellectually dishonesty, typical of the left and Trump derangement syndrome. No one can have a serious discussion with people who think and act like this."

            After that crickets.

            1. promisem profile image95
              promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              You are obviously an expert in media, politics and psychology. What do you do for a living?

          2. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            "The Pulitzer Prize is an American award for predominantly liberal journalism. There are other associated awards also called Pulitzer Prizes for other areas such as literature. In all, 21 Pulitzer Prizes are given out each year. The Pulitzer Prize Gold Medal is awarded each year to the American newspaper that wins the Public Service category of the journalism competition." -  http://www.conservapedia.com/Pulitzer_Prize

            Its kind of like the Liberal Arts Awards predominantly awarded to liberal artists. 

            Politico is as liberal as it gets, so there is bias there for having the same agenda driven political narrative.  Politico can be really honest and fair sometimes when the evidence is glaring, even when it isn't good for the liberal side.  The story posted in the OP is just recycled disinformation this time.

            1. promisem profile image95
              promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Do you seriously think a site with the name of CONSERVApedia is politically neutral and without bias?

              1. colorfulone profile image88
                colorfuloneposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                No, I don't think that, do you?

                1. promisem profile image95
                  promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  It seems to me that a site with "conserva" in the name has a conservative point of view.

                  1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
                    Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Boy, you are so smart, a liberal who can actually state the obvious, rare among the loony left.

                    1. promisem profile image95
                      promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                      "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement." - Wikipedia

      5. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Well propaganda always starts with misinformation and when realized introduces new values and terminology. Remember trickle down economics that never worked? It still is thrown out there for people to continue its' myth. With our failing education system and tireless working of useless jobs what else can be expected?

        1. promisem profile image95
          promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Yep. Distortions of the truth appeal to people who want to believe the distortions. Simple misinformation eventually leads to full-blown propaganda and people who believe it all, i.e., the FBI, CIA and NSA are wrong about Russian interference in our election.

          I suspect historians will look back on this time as a great leap in worldwide communication and a great leap in propaganda.

      6. Onusonus profile image85
        Onusonusposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Only Liberals are against freedom of speech.

        1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
          Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          unless they are lying as in "It also banned the phrase "emissions reduction" No one banned any phrases, left wing lie and talking point. "the phrases have not been banned outright, but are reportedly part of a list of climate-related terms that are being avoided in light of the Trump administration's attitudes on climate change." that's from THE HILL, They're all in if the speech is a lie.

    2. ahorseback profile image45
      ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

      I believe 100 %   in Climate Change , spring ,summer , autumn , winter ................

      1. crankalicious profile image86
        crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I've seen this dumb reply twice today. Is this the newest thing on Breitbart?

      2. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Things are changing though, the sun has changed and the sun controls the climate.  The sun, when I can see it, is a bright white now and it is hotter.  The sun use to be yellow to look at.

        1. Dean Traylor profile image83
          Dean Traylorposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          That argument has been debunked. While the sun is expandinding, it's not causing the type of acceleration in the earth surface temperture. AGW is a major culprit. It's even out doing the volcano eruptions over last century and beyond.

          1. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            AGW is a hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.  That has been turned into an industry for some people to make a lot of money. 

            I'm glad President Trump is backing NASA to go into outer space.  Maybe we can get some definitive answers and evidence soon and end the controversy.  Science is about asking questions.

            So, how have you been, Dean?

            1. Dean Traylor profile image83
              Dean Traylorposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Well, an astronomer I used to talk to once made a comment about hypothesis: he doesn't know any scientists that refer to them. In fact he stated that it must have been something created for high school science courses. As far as AGW is concerned; it has been observed, tested, studied and collected in terms of data. In many respects, it has been validated. And, interestingly enough, it has been known for nearly a century. The one thing that doesn't have much validity is that some type industry has been formed in proving AGW. However, there seems to be a lot of money from numerous industries trying to prove it's not a fact...that's where the money's at.
              As far as to what I'm doing? Writing and reposting Hubs. That was originally why I was on this site.

    3. abwilliams profile image83
      abwilliamsposted 3 months ago

      I've never heard that one , I like it.
      I can relate to that so much more than worrying myself to an early grave that in 1 million years it may be 1 degree warmer (or colder, I must consider my Northern friends) in March than it is present day.

      1. crankalicious profile image86
        crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        It is quite funny given that it demonstrates the complete ignorance of climate science by anyone using it effectively proving that they know nothing about what they're trying to debunk.

        1. abwilliams profile image83
          abwilliamsposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          I remember a Time Magazine cover from the 70s, "The Coming Ice Age".
          I know for a fact, that there have been numerous reports of cooked (no pun intended) reports, studies to make the case for Global Warming.....Correct, no more talk of coming Ice Age....onto Warming.
          These 'cooked' reports, studies, etc. first had to help Al Gore make his case. Al "The Earth has a temperature" Gore. Did you know he's richer now?
          More recently there have been multiple allegations (whistle blowing if you will) of bad data being utilized to help Barack Obama continue to make the case of....not the coming Ice Age, not the Earth has a temperature. Oh No, to make the case for Climate Change.
          Additionally, the IPCC Scientists have admitted "great exaggerations"
          As a result of this False Religion(which is what it has become) children have been convinced that they alone, by their mere existence, can destroy the Earth and as if it's not dangerous enough to send teenagers out on the highways, we are sending them out in little tin cans, so they can feel good about not leaving behind "their carbon footprint".
          It's pathetic and it is cruel!

          Now we have come to the point where someone will further attempt to insult my intelligence and tell me that I don't care about my planet. If my kids had ever thrown garbage out of car windows or left anything behind, other than their footprints in the sand, at the beach.....they would have been in deep trouble. We've returned garbage to people that we've caught dumping in our neighborhood. We just tell them, oops ya'll accidentally left this behind.

          1. Dean Traylor profile image83
            Dean Traylorposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Ab, the Newsweek story you are referring to was debunked by the original author. Also the information did not come climate scientists. Even in the 70s, climate scientists knew it was all about warming rather than cooling. And as far as the cooked book thing, most of those reports came deniers who were either data mining or fabricating the information. I've written three Hubs on this topic. Also, why bring up al gore? The science on the matter has been around for nearly a century.the problem is that PR from deniers has propigated over the last three decades.

            1. abwilliams profile image83
              abwilliamsposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Nevertheless, the photo is out there, along with the photo of the Polar Bear that was supposedly on the very last slab of ice.
              We know that photos don't always tell the whole story, but this stuff is scaring the heck out of kids, young and old.
              So much has been debunked, but yet the "exaggerations", and the Al Gore quotes linger on,  like a bad cologne.

          2. crankalicious profile image86
            crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            abwilliams, you are horribly confused. Certainly, people might exaggerate the meaning of the data or what they might predict based on the data, but the data itself is irrefutable. It shows, dramatically increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and climate change as a result of the warming of the earth.

            1. abwilliams profile image83
              abwilliamsposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Al Gore preaches...."the earth has a temperature, man is responsible..."
              Barack Obama chimes in from the choir section, "no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change" and the audience is enthralled!

              I'm horribly confused?

            2. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
              Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Crank you are wrong, we already know that the scientists have fudged all sorts of data and whatever correct data there is all kinds of assumptions must be made to say the increase is dramatic or exactly what affect 400ppm carbon dioxide has on the climate if any.

              Here are Four pieces of well-established evidence that say that 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not a concern.

              Firstly, there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998 despite 16 years of rising carbon dioxide levels and heavy usage of carbon fuels. Clearly, CO2 is not the main driver of global temperatures.

              Secondly, the ice core records show clearly, with no exceptions, that all recent ice ages have commenced when the atmosphere contained relatively high levels of carbon dioxide. The temperature fell first, and then carbon dioxide levels fell. This proves that high carbon dioxide levels do not guarantee a warm globe, but could suggest that they may be a harbinger of a coming ice age. Ice will cause far more damage to the biosphere than the even the worst warming forecast.

              Thirdly, current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are not extreme or unusual. Carbon dioxide reached 2,000 ppm in the luxuriant era of the dinosaurs, and ten times current levels (4,000 ppm) when the great Devonian coral reefs were flourishing. There is no tipping point into runaway global warming, or we would have tipped eons ago.

              Finally, current carbon dioxide levels are just above starvation levels for plants. All vegetation would grow stronger, faster, and be more drought resistant and heat resistant if carbon dioxide levels trebled to 1,200 ppm. Such levels are no threat to humans – US submarines operate at up to 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days. Topping 400 ppm should be a cause for celebration – it shows that Earth is emerging from the cold hungry years of the ice ages.

              Climate Cassandras have blown false trumpets once again. If you bothered to look at all sides of the issue instead of buying into left wing propaganda you would know this.

              1. crankalicious profile image86
                crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                You are so completely wrong and confused and inaccurate in what you're saying that it's hilarious. I presume you believe the earth is flat too? That the sun revolves around the earth? Why wouldn't you believe that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth? All you have to do is go outside and watch it? Just like global warming is disproven by the fact that it's cold in Buffalo, right?

                It is a scientific fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes the greenhouse effect. It's also a fact that carbon dioxide levels have risen dramatically since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The 12 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumen … _from_1850

                What scientific background do you have to make your statements?

                1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
                  Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  You seem to be stuck on the phrase " you are confused." I can only imagine that is because you are the author of confusion. I have two degrees in science but what degrees I have have no bearing whatsoever on anything I said as these are not my words but from scientific sources and are scientific facts which you obviously are too ignorant to even exam. Wikipedia is not any kind of source you can cite for these things and everyone knows that - any scientist would laugh you off the forum for basing the final word on anything from wikipedia.

                  I must say that rather than refute any specific point I stated you only fabricated a ridiculous image that has nothing to do with me, my beliefs or with anything I said. Your transparent attempt at disparaging the messenger because you cannot refute with inarguable evidence anything I said is exactly what I'd expect from a brainwashed ignoramus.

                  You obviously have no scientific background to make the statements you made because they are pure recitation of left wing false propaganda as I thoroughly explained. You are wrong. CO2 does nothing negative and everything positive. Its increase had helped crops and forests grow faster and use less water doing so. That has enhanced the ability of farmers to feed the world. IF the climate heated -- it hasn't and seems unlikely to do so despite an all-out propaganda assault led by the UN -- it would make life easier and more prosperous for those living in current very cold environments (Siberia, Alaska, Canadian Arctic, Greenland, etc.) and make greenhouse-grown food less expensive for the inhabitants of those cold places. Man has been releasing CO2 since the discovery of fire; Mother nature has been releasing CO2 via forest fires and volcanoes for much longer a period. Hot periods do not correlate to CO2 concentrations -- mid-1930s and mid-1950s had much smaller populations and CO2 releases and much hotter temperatures. Don't fall for propaganda.

                  1. promisem profile image95
                    promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    "I must say that rather than refute any specific point..."

                    I detect a pattern.

      2. Dean Traylor profile image83
        Dean Traylorposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Try more than 1% in less than 100 years. And that 1% rise is nothing to scoff when you consider that the average ovER a period of time.

      3. promisem profile image95
        promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I think you should be more concerned about an administration that bans the use of widely accepted scientific terms.

        1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
          Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Nobody banned anything - left wing TDS is your problem

          1. promisem profile image95
            promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Thanks for contributing thoughtful and respectful comments to the discussion. Keep up the good work!

            1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
              Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Well at least I'm honest, something a spin meister knows nothing about.

              1. promisem profile image95
                promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Nah, you're just consistent and predictable.

                1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
                  Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Consistently and predictably honest? I hope so! Better than consistently and predictably changing the subject when you've been undeniably shown in black and white (once again) to spew lies and loony left talking points.

                  1. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
                    Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    DTMB:  Write more than one hub and gain some credibility on this site.

                    1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
                      Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                      Look who is talking, credibility? You have seldom said anything credible but like birds of a feather you flock together with Promisem in attacking the messenger when you have no credible response to the truth. I've been here for over 4 years and nowhere have I read that you need to write any number of hub pages to participate, but of course you would be the one to make up your own rules, anything to avoid or deflect from the truth.Explain to me how the number of hubpages written has anything to do with the credibility of comments presented by anyone anywhere. Facts are facts, because you've written one or 50 hubpages that has absolutely nothing to do with what is said.

                      According to your reasoning anyone on earth who has not written a hub page has no credibility here...lol that's the kind of lunacy YOU think is reasoning?

                    2. promisem profile image95
                      promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                      Agreed. And why is it that someone who claims to be "honest" is so determined to hide his or her identity?

    4. Nathanville profile image90
      Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago

      It’s interesting to see America go in one direction e.g. a preference for fossil fuels, while Europe goes in the opposite direction (renewable energy).

      I’m not a ‘Green’ person by nature and I was sceptical of all the claims made under the original phrase “Global Warming”; but I have come to accept that ‘Climate Change’ is a reality.

      In Bristol, England (where I live) snow up to 6 inches or a foot deep every January through to March was a normal annual event; and most of the winter months (especially at night) use to be sub-zero (below freezing).  However, since the late 1980s we almost never get any snow now; and on the rare occasions we might get it (usually just for a day or two once every two or three years) it’s rarely any more than a few millimetres deep (just a sprinkling).  In fact today it’s 17c (63f) degrees Celsius; whereas 30 years ago it would typically be about 5c (41f) degrees Celsius at this time of year.

      Therefore, for Britain, Climate Change (whatever the cause) is defiantly having an impact; not that I’m complaining in the sense that it’s nice to have warmer winters; plus it saves on the heating bill.

      However Europe takes it seriously, and set ambitious targets to switch from dependency on fossil fuels to becoming self-sufficient on renewable energies.  In 2009 Europe decided that it would meet or exceed specific targets by specific dates (building on the success of less ambitious targets set in 2004), as follows:-

      •    20% of its energy would come from renewable energy by 2020
      •    30% of its energy would come from renewable energy by 2030
      •    80% of its energy would come from renewable energy by 2050

      As of this year, several European countries are already meeting 100% of their energy needs from renewables at times (especially on windy days), including Germany, Denmark and Scotland.  Britain achieved its 20% target this January and is set to achieve about 25% by 2020.

      These four videos highlight just some of the achievements being made in Europe: -

      Germany and Denmark’s achievements:  https://youtu.be/z44Mq7mXoCE

      New scheme recently given approval by the British Government:  https://youtu.be/mNyeha6L6D0

      Electric Mountain in Wales:  https://youtu.be/SkIzKGot0Ss

      Energy from sewage in Bristol: https://youtu.be/eKjfCZXU-vE

      Since the last video was made a fleet of 200 buses in Bristol is now run on poo power, and the excess gas created by feeding sewage to anaerobic bacteria is fed either directly into the gas ‘national grid’ or burnt to produce energy which is then fed into the electricity ‘national grid’; dependent on where its most needed at the time.  This is just one of many similar schemes springing-up across Britain and Europe.

      1. promisem profile image95
        promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Nathanville, the American government is temporarily under the control of extremists who think everything is a lie except for whatever makes them rich.

        Even a majority of Trump voters believe in climate change and a need to address it.

        http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/pu … l-warming/

        We will soon get back on track with the rest of the planet. Just wait and see the March for Science protests in Washington D.C. on April 22.

      2. crankalicious profile image86
        crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Probably not best to use weather events as examples of climate change (though they certainly can be) because it confuses people who don't understand that one snowball in Washington D.C. is not a representation of climate. How about the rise in temperature in the oceans completely destroying coral reefs around the world.

        http://www.chasingcoral.com/

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Lets do it, we'll ban "weather events".  wink   Weather changes is good?

          Have you seen that film?   What do they claim in their "narrative storytelling" as the elites' The Economist phrased it (I get a kick out how they word things)?   

          Coral bleaching is said to be caused by ultraviolet radiation, which makes sense since the sun controls our climate along with warming the oceans, and the sun is expanding.  ADDED: Plus, the jet stream has changed from one year ago. Also, the Gulf Stream changed sometime ago and hasn't normalized. 

          Something that does not get talked about in mainstream is the Fukushima nuclear radiation that has contaminated the Pacific Ocean and continues to do so everyday.  Its like taboo.  From reports I have read its a scary deal.

          1. crankalicious profile image86
            crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            And your educational background to make such statements is what exactly? Do you have a Ph.D. in any scientific field? There are two observable, scientifically verifiable things to consider: the fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to the warming of the earth AND the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If you don't acknowledge those two things, then we might as well argue whether or not gravity is a real thing.

            Let me put it another way: do you believe that the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth? If you believe the former, why do you believe it? As far as I can tell when I go outside, the sun is moving around the earth. Since that is my observable truth and I can see it with my own eyes, shouldn't I believe that the sun revolves around the earth? Why should I believe otherwise?

      3. Nathanville profile image90
        Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Thanks for the links promisem and crankalicious; an interesting read, and very enlightening.

        1. promisem profile image95
          promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          You're welcome, Nathanville. I always look forward to your thoughtful posts.

    5. ahorseback profile image45
      ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

      Al Gore , Is in the climate change business !  Pretty simple .     

      Everyone these days  likes to  vilify Trump automatically as  having "conflicts of interest " simply because he is a business man ,    Wouldn't one think that a career politician like Al Gore might be called into question  making millions and millions of dollars from  a science " Business "?

    6. ahorseback profile image45
      ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

      All one has to do is look around America and watch the alternative energy sources  growing .  Wind towers , solar farms  ,   green auto mfg. ,     I live rurally  and am amazed how quickly its spreading ,   I still wonder though how  in a very liberal state  its primary media  issue  is ," Not in My Back yard" though .

      1. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Money talks.  They must be leasing the land because only 7.8% of the land is owned by the government in Vermont.

      2. crankalicious profile image86
        crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Slightly off-topic, but our President just had to settle a lawsuit and give back tuition to pretty much everyone who attended Trump University because what they got for their money was worthless. In other words, they were defrauded. Hmmm, seems telling.

    7. balancedmatter profile image73
      balancedmatterposted 3 months ago

      This is really discouraging! The fact that climate change has increasingly been frowned upon is startling and disheartening. Global warming is a serious issue and there is scientific evidence of how detrimental this is to life on this planet. Not only are we hurting our planet by avoiding this topic but we are causing harm by influencing others that this is a conspiracy or that it's just how earth operates. Earths climate has changed drastically within the last 650,000 years. Chasing animals to become extinct and more animals are in danger as these upcoming years approach. Global warming is human induced! If we could live cleaner lifestyles and make significant changes we could help not destroy the platform we call home. Do you want to wipe out hope for future advancements? Kill off innocent creatures who have lived here long before us because of our selfish needs? Yet, these needs are insignificant because we would be happier living minimilized lifestyles. Earth has warmed tremendously since the 1800's and within the last 35 years we've broken records. How is it that the more advanced we become the more harm we cause on this planet? Is it too much to not want to breathe and be consumed by pollutant that fills the air because of our own bad habits. We need to quit emitting mass amounts of carbon dioxide into the air and re-evaluate what we want for our future.

      1. Nathanville profile image90
        Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Balancedmatter, Europe is with you.  Since 2009 it’s had ambitious targets to reduce carbon emission; investing heavily in research, development and implementation of renewable energy. 

        It’s well ahead of schedule, countries like Germany, Denmark and Scotland have already exceeded their 2050 target of being 80% reliant on renewable energy; and even Britain reached its 2020 target of 20% in January this year, and is set to meet or exceed 25% by 2020.

        And it’s all being achieved without the need to compromise on lifestyle; on the contrary, the conversion from fossil fuels to green renewable energy in Europe is creating new job opportunities (long, medium and short term) that are beneficial to their economies. 

        I think this video says it all: - https://youtu.be/Er9rF5aLU5o

        See my post further up for more details.

        1. abwilliams profile image83
          abwilliamsposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          You both seem terrified and with no good reason. Go back and do some searching....all that Al Gore and Leonardo DiCapprio said would happen before 2014, has not happened!  Thank God, but I'm not surprised....many more than you know, are not the least bit surprised that Gore's many predictions did not come to fruition. Not in the least.

          I'm thinking you are both young and have been overly exposed.....but, not by what you think, instead it's an overexposure to indoctrination and scare tactics.

          Life is short, none of us are Promised tomorrow. Enjoy Life, don't be afraid of it!

          Of course we should all be good stewards of this Earth; be smart, be wise, get involved in road, beach, river cleanup projects, etc. and always utilize your God-given common sense.

          Don't go off the deep end!

          I believe this video says it all:

          http://www.snopes.com/2015/07/08/nobel- … te-change/

          1. Nathanville profile image90
            Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Well actually, you are wrong abwilliams, I am not young, I took early retirement 5 years ago and am now enjoying life as a househusband until my wife takes early retirement in a couple of years.

            Also, I’m European, where our governments have a better understanding of climate change than the American administration does.

            And over the decades I’ve seen the British weather dramatically change.  There was a time (when I was young) when we had reasonably predictable weather patterns e.g. spring, summer, autumn and winter.  In those days we would have cold winters, wet springs, a typical British summer e.g. not particularly hot most of the time with lots of rain, then an autumn where it would get colder and we would start to get frosts.

            In the last six years we’ve frequently had just two or three of the seasons; a mild winter and then quite a hot summer (when it’s not raining); with either a hot spring and or a hot autumn.

            Today is just the 2nd of April, when just 10 years ago you would normally expect it to be cold and wet here in Bristol, England; whereas today it’s a hot summer’s day.  Today I’ve been in our back garden basking in the sun (in my summer clothes) while doing the gardening.  We’ve also now turned all the heating off (which just a few years ago we wouldn’t normally do until well into May) and now we have all the windows and doors wide open to keep the house cooler.   All my life up until the late 1980s Bristol used to get deep snow most winters between January and March; whereas, in the past 30 years Bristol has had little or no snow.

            So Climate Change in Britain isn’t something I’ve been indoctrinated about, it’s something I’ve experienced over my lifetime.

            Besides, fossil fuels is a limited resource, that will become expensive as it becomes more scarce; so if for no other reason, switching from dependency on fossil fuels now rather than later (as Europe is doing) does make good economic sense.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              And the river running through our town is flooding because the spill gates at the dam have been opened in an effort to drain the reservoir...because we've had more snow this year than has ever been recorded.  The coldest winter that I can remember in my 20 years here, to boot (boy, did my electric bill verify that!) - we normally have a few days as low as 0F but this winter was week after week of it, as low as -15F.

              Local weather has nothing to do with climate change, even spread over a small country.

              1. Nathanville profile image90
                Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Wilderness, so you’re logic dictates that Greenland’s huge loss of ice is local weather and has nothing to do with climate change; and likewise, Iceland’s huge loss of ice is also local weather and has nothing to do with climate change?

                Climate change doesn’t mean every part of the earth becomes uniformly warmer.  It means the climate changes globally, which can also mean that while some parts of the planet gets warmer other parts my not, but the overall average temperature on a global scale (due to the rise in greenhouse gases) increases.

                I’m fully aware of the exceptionally bitter cold winters experienced in New York, Canada and Alaska in recent years (while Britain has basked in exceptionally warm winters in recent years); that is all part of climate change.

                Besides, Britain isn’t subjected to localised weather; Britain’s weather is determined by the interaction of four global weather fronts, plus the Jet Stream and the Gulf Stream.  The four air streams that collide over Britain are:-

                •    The Polar Air Mass (from the artic) (North); cold weather front.

                •    The Tropical Air Mass (from North Africa and the Mediterranean) (South); hot weather front.

                •    The Maritime Air Mass (from the Atlantic Ocean) (West); wet weather front.

                •    The Continental Air Mass (from Europe and Asia) (East); dry weather front.

                They all collide over Britain giving unsettled weather all year round.  However, it’s the Jet Stream and the Gulf Stream that have the biggest overall effect on the British weather; both are global, not local.

                Although you may be experiencing colder winters, Idaho is on latitude of 44 degrees; which is 480 miles further south than Bristol.  Scotland is on the same latitude as Canada e.g. the same distance from the artic circle; and if it wasn’t for the Gulf Stream bringing warm sea water to Britain, Scotland would be as cold Canada in winter and southern Britain would be colder than New York and Idaho.  So our warm winter climate is very much dependant on sea temperatures and the continuing flow of the Gulf Stream.

                This video spells out (in simple terms) what Britain is currently experiencing due to climate change: - https://youtu.be/SDxmlvGiV9k

          2. crankalicious profile image86
            crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Holy cow, it's like you didn't even watch and/or read the Snopes link you posted. The guy in the video admitted he knows very little about climate change. If you want to argue about what we should do about climate change, that's very different than arguing that the data doesn't validate the conclusion that global warming is happening.

          3. Dean Traylor profile image83
            Dean Traylorposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Ab, I wrote an article on him. He's not a climate scientist and he has never seen the data on climate science. Much of his denial come from conjecture. He's a favorite among deniers because he has a PhD and was awarded the nobel, but he's a engineer whose work never dealt with studying climate change.

            1. abwilliams profile image83
              abwilliamsposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              He makes a great case, there is no denying that. He has gained nothing but criticism by putting in his two cents worth, but yet he went there. I find him very interesting.

              I will read your Article.

              1. crankalicious profile image86
                crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Believing him is kind of like being on an airplane where the pilot has had a heart attack and trusting an officer with the Coast Guard to land the plane. All science is the same, right?

              2. crankalicious profile image86
                crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                I should have asked this earlier, but with regard to the video, he's an admitted non-expert on climate change. There are thousands of experts on the subject with lots of published material, but for some reason, you've chosen to believe a non-expert. Why? You've chosen the opinion of a non-expert over experts.

                Do you do that on other subjects? If your doctor gives you a recommendation you don't like about your health, do you seek out the advice of a lawyer? Or even within medicine, if your OBGYN gives you some advice, do you reject it in favor of the advice of an oncologist?

                Don't you think it's weird to prefer the opinions of non-experts over experts?

                1. abwilliams profile image83
                  abwilliamsposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  He just makes the most sense.

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Can't speak for Europe, but my electric company is forced, by law, to purchase "renewable" energy (solar and wind) from whoever has it - commercial, farmers, homeowners, etc.).  At a premium of nearly 50% over what the utility can produce it for themselves.

          The result is an increase in our electric bills, and while it is small because there isn't a great deal of "renewable" energy (yet) it is still an increase.  This would seem to show that there IS a compromise in lifestyle - inevitable when the cost of necessary resources (electricity) rises.

          1. Nathanville profile image90
            Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Hi Wilderness, yes it is the same for Europe; but then the costs are an investment in our future e.g. switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is a big investment, but once the investment is made e.g. the solar panels installed, the wind turbines built, the tidal generators installed etc., the cost of collecting the energy from renewable sources such as the sun, wind, tides, sewage, geothermal etc., drops dramatically. 

            A lot of people in Britain and across Europe install solar panels as an investment because they are guaranteed a 9% return on their investment costs over a 25 year period; so it pays for itself within the first 10 years and then the rest is just pure profit.  Many British farmers are installing small wind farms to supplement their income.

            On our utility bills in Britain we also pay a 13% green tax, but that also pays for the cost of installing smart metres in every home by 2020 (government policy), which will help people so save money on their utility bills by being able to use energy in their homes more efficiently.  The green tax also pays for the cost of any home in Britain that isn’t properly insulated or which has an old boiler (over 10 years old) to be fully insulated to the latest standards, and to have their central heating boiler replaced for free to the home owner.  I took advantage of that to have my walls fully insulated for free; and since its cut my heating bill by about 10%.

            Yes, such a massive switchover from fossil fuels to renewable energy isn’t cheap in the initial years due to the installation costs, but once the switchover is made the long term benefits are huge.  Besides, in the intervening years (in Europe) its creating massive job opportunities in the manufacturing and construction industries, and guaranteeing future jobs in maintenance and operation of the renewable energy plants; which are good for the European economies.

            The video below about Scotland’s achievements explains this in simple terms. 

            This video is only three years old (when Scotland had achieved 50% renewable energy); last year they were one of several European countries to reach 100% in renewable energy: - https://youtu.be/yPQckF8R2TI

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Then there is most certainly a compromise in lifestyle.  That it is being hidden in the tax code or passed to someone else doesn't take that away.  While most of us could afford a 50% increase in energy costs (lowering our living standard by that amount), a great many people can't - we're back to the nanny state providing needs for the people.

              I will also mention in passing that we get the same silly offerings here - solar panels that pay for themselves in 10 years and then it's gravy.  Of course, no one mentions that in 10 years there is going to be a great deal of maintenance - maintenance that is NOT covered in that payback period.

              I had a company visit my home and give me their thoughts on solar panels.  Even though I've got a south facing roof to put them on and live in a sun filled high desert area it still was not economically feasible.  Too far north and too many days of clouds, particularly in the winter.  They wouldn't even talk much about it - far more interested in selling attic insulation.

              1. Nathanville profile image90
                Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Wilderness, there’s no compromise in lifestyle in Britain; a 50% increase in energy costs (your quote) doesn’t lower living standards by that same amount; and besides a lot of the increase in energy bills in the past was due for example to the record high oil prices between 2008 and 2011. 

                Obviously, as Britain becomes more reliant on renewable energy, then uncertainties in the oil market will have less impact on the price of our energy bills.  Besides, the increases in utility bills over the years is insignificant compared to the huge medical bills Americans have to face; which surly must have a greater impact on American lifestyle?

                Regardless to what you might think, neither the lifestyle, nor the standard of living in Britain is compromised.  Most British people are financially and socially better off than we were 8 years ago e.g. following the 2009 global recession caused by the collapse of the American housing and banking markets.  And most British people are all certainly a lot better off than we were 20 or 30 years ago.

                I own my own house, and have all the latest technology in the home e.g. 50 inch HD plasma TV with 7:1 surround sound, the latest TiVo box (with cable TV), capable of recording six channels simultaneously, Broadband speeds of 220 Mbps (soon to be upgraded to 300 Mbps), digital phone landline, and two holidays per year.  We have two weeks holiday in southern France every summer, and then a further week somewhere in the UK in August.  We also take regular day trips or weekend trips away throughout the year to see special events.

                Although a lot of our close friends are either on low income or unemployed none are living in poverty; they all have a comfortable standard of living with their own mod cons (including 50 inch plasma TVs), high speed broadband, cable TV, and their own cars etc.

                As regard the quality and reliability of solar panels; you’re not the first American to make the same statement.  Although I haven’t checked; it makes me wonder whether America is yet again using older technologies; if so, then it wouldn’t be for the first time e.g. NTSC vs PAL, and Broadband technologies etc.

                I can assure you Europe has made some big advances in solar panel technologies in recent years; they’re becoming a lot more reliable, efficient and durable than the original ones. 

                This short video explains the rapid expansion of solar farms throughout the UK in recent years; all contributing to Britain becoming less reliant on fossil fuels.  https://youtu.be/vqOTmyAveyk

      2. promisem profile image95
        promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Part of my own discouragement is Trump's massive budget cuts and upcoming layoffs at the EPA.

    8. ahorseback profile image45
      ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

      Don. W       exactly except.   Change isn't just global warming...........I know that doesn't fit the alarmism factor though

    9. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 3 months ago

      I saw a NatGeo piece today, concerning an expedition to Russia's Northern Franz Josef Land.

      The point of the show was a comparison of some old pictures, (ranging from 1895 - 1935), with modern pictures of the same locations in 2015. (or maybe it was 2013). There was an obvious diminishment(sp?) of Glacial, Snowpack, and Sea Ice.

      This prompted a question that is an honest one, because I don't know the answer.

      That the mentioned ices are diminished is unquestionable, but... is it known that the rate of decline is accelerated beyond what could be normal progression? Are there records before photography was available to make comparisons available? Are there historical records from more than a hundred, or so, years ago that were accurate enough to form a view of the rate of ice melt?

      Is it possible that the rate of ice melt is a natural progression that has nothing to do with man? If you consider that at one time, almost all of our inhabited continents were covered by glacier ice, (yes, I do mean after the last Ice Age), - the receding of those glacial ices had to have been a natural progression. So, I think the rate of ice melt is an important one. What are the scientific baselines to make a determination of that rate change?

      GA

      1. Nathanville profile image90
        Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Hi GA, very good questions; short of taking the easy route and looking for answers from reliable sources, or without spending hours ploughing through loads of technical data, I don’t have the information at my fingertips to fully answer all your questions.  And besides, it doesn’t matter what I say there will be plenty of people here who will dispute it anyway; even if I backed it up with references from reliable sources.

        However, I might be able to shed some light on the subject for you?

        1.     Yes there are records (evidence) available before photography to enable comparisons to be made. 

        Two techniques that spring to mind are:-

        •    analyse marine and plant fossil records in datable sedimentary rocks at various locations e.g. the type of plant and marine life helps to identify the climate at that time in that region.

        •    Ice cores.

        Ice cores is very much like tree rings and very important for studying climate change overtime.  This video explains in more detail: -  https://youtu.be/VjTsj-fi-p0

        2.    Yes, climate change is a natural event that has occurred ever since the earth was first formed.  However, because of the huge volumes of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution humans are having a big impact on that natural phenomenon. 

        In other words, although the climate on the earth would naturally be cooling or warming at this time if we were not here; because we are here, and having a big impact on the environment, then we are contributing to climate change in a big way.  Our contribution being that we are causing ‘global warming’ (for want of a better word) at an accelerated rate.

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Thanks for your effort Nathanville, but you were too generous when you described them as "very good questions."  When I looked back and realized how naively phrased my questions were, (and it wasn't even a martini night) - I wanted to just close the closet door and wait for my meals to be passed through the bottom crack.

          I was aware of ice core research, and how integral it is to the climate change discussion and its study. I am also aware of the amount of solid data that can be determined by their study. The analogy of "tree ring dating" to their ability to show seasonal-type changes and atmospheric events, and the conclusiveness of their ability to show atmospheric gases content hundreds of thousands of years in the past, is a fair one.

          But what I am not sure of, and what I will claim prompted those dumb sounding questions, is the basis, or validity of the temperature determinations that correlate to those gases levels. I haven't looked deep enough to form any kind of educated understanding of the process, but it seems that unlike the concrete evidence of gases, it is only less-than-concrete models that create the historical temperature graphs. I would think that if there is a hook to hang a denier's hat on, it would be the validity of those model's assumptions.

          GA

          1. Nathanville profile image90
            Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Hi Ga, I think you’re asking good sensible questions.

            Again, from memory I can only give a part answer:-

            1.    If you take the period of earth’s history when dinosaurs were dominant. 

            •    We know from the fossil records what species of plant, animal and insect life co-existed with the dinosaurs. 

            •    For those life forms that exist to this day we know what climate they thrive in e.g. tropical, temperate etc., and which temperature ranges they can tolerate; and the temperature ranges specific species can’t tolerate.

            •    We also know from leaf fossils the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  As we know, plants breathe carbon dioxide; which is done through their ‘stomata’ (pores in the leaves).  The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the fewer stomata on the leaves and the less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the more stomata on the leaves. 

            Therefore, for any period of the earth’s history, if we have preserved or fossilised leaves, we can then use that to calculate carbon dioxide levels by counting the stomata on the leaves.  And likewise, any plant, animal and or insect life found at the same location that has survived to the present day, we know that temperature range and climate the live in, so the two sets up data charted together gives a comparison between temperature and carbon dioxide levels.

            There are other methodologies for determining things like climatic temperatures and atmospheric gases in the earth’s past; but from memory, my knowledge of those are a bit hazy at the moment.

            I hope this is of some help.

            1. GA Anderson profile image86
              GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Yes Nathanville, it was of some help. Thanks.

              But I will still need to do some digging myself to understand the scale of the ranges of temperatures that would be indicated by the indicators you spoke of.

              GA

    10. SherrieWeynand profile image83
      SherrieWeynandposted 3 months ago

      Climate change is real and global warming is real. Global warming being a symptom of the climate change. That said, yes, it's happened before. There have been 7 cycles of the climate changing, the last cycle ending the ice age. Right now we shouldn't be focused on if it's real...because again, it does happen, and will continue to happen for the life of the planet. The problem right now is the rate of speed the symptoms are growing. The carbon dioxide and methane (the two biggest greenhouse gases we have) levels are skyrocketing. I think the push to make it seem that it is something new is what is making it unrealistic to a lot of people. We can't stop it from happening but we can slow it down. That should be the focus of the environmentalists, not we have to stop it. It will never happen, it's naturally occurring, the human aspect can be minimized, though.

      1. Nathanville profile image90
        Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        A very perceptive piece of writing Sherrie, I fully agree with you; the facts well put and you’ve so focused on what really matters.

    11. abwilliams profile image83
      abwilliamsposted 3 months ago

      Banned? For what! A differing opinion? I've read through the comments and there's a lot of passion on this subject, whether you're all in or believe it's the greatest fabrication of all time. Unless there was something deleted, I don't see where he crossed the line.

      1. promisem profile image95
        promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Name calling was the cause. Look for his posts that say Deleted. When someone is banned, it usually means they have a history of verbal abuse and have been warned about it in the past.

        1. abwilliams profile image83
          abwilliamsposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Okay. Thanks for clearing up.

    12. Will Apse profile image90
      Will Apseposted 3 months ago

      I don't think many people understand how science works. It goes a bit like this.

      Someone notices something happening in the world.
      They, or someone else, comes up with an explanation.
      An experiment, or series of experiments, is conducted to test the hypothesis.
      If the results are significant the experiment is repeated by other scientists, often in far away countries.
      If the results are confirmed by a number of independent researchers, the hypothesis is accepted as valid.

      It is very difficult to fake results or produce data that is not accurate.

      If you look at a scientific research paper, it lays out the methodology used, in extreme detail. This is so that colleagues/rivals can look for flaws or biases in the approach taken. It is also so that other scientists, anywhere in the world can repeat the experiment exactly as it was first conducted.

      Obviously, this is very slow way of doing things but it produces reliable results. The notion that conspiracies can exist in important areas of science like climate research simply cannot be sustained.

      Nothing can be hidden when research is conducted in an academic setting.

      Within corporations, the story is different. The tobacco companies hid research that showed cigarettes were carcinogenic for decades and many smokers who believed the industry lies died .

      Essentially, when it comes to public health, science is one of the necessary checks and balances on industry.

      That also happens to be true for climate change which is the biggest public health challenge of this century.

    13. ahorseback profile image45
      ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

      Like Craig's List -Rant's and Raves  forums can be very edgy  and gross ,  One person posts an issue , another one "Flags " them .    But when politics becomes something personal ;   someone should be banned .     Ideological differences aside  , when it gets personal -- the level of that point differs for some ---, its time to "break up the fight ".

      Calling out the weakness' or failure of a political  ideology itself is not a issue of banning  however and shouldn't be , until it gets personal.

     
    working