Energy Department office bans the phrase "climate change"
- promisemposted 6 years ago
0It 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-236655Good, 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.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."".............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 .
Never underestimate the value of edumacation.
I never underestimate the power of indoctri-cation.
Is that what they call science nowadays? Man, never underestimate the power of homeschooling.
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.
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.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.
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?There’s nothing wrong with being a Capitalist. I’m a Socialist, but a mixed economy like Britain, Europe and the Industrialised world in general requires a healthy mix to function at its best. It’s when one side or the other becomes over dominant (especially if it’s for too long) that a good economy and society in general, begins to suffer.
In British politics Governments periodically swing between the Conservatives (Capitalists) and Labour (Socialists), with the Liberal Democrats in the middle who occasionally hold the balance of power.
The Liberal Democrats philosophy and political agenda being very much in favour of a mixed economy, so they can easily, and often do, appeal to voters from both sides.In truth, I believe in the healthy mix that you describe. I see it as a form of humane capitalism.
Well put, often Conservatives who show traits of 'humane capitalism' in Britain are generally referred to as 'soft right' e.g. on the left of the Conservative Government.
Deleted
Deleted
Deleted
Yeah, maybe I should get a hat like yours and we could communicate on your level..I guess the Hatter.
I worked for 20 years at Cox Enterprises and Media General. All you have to do is a Google search.
If you are so honest and factual, what work did you retire from?For being a journalist I would think you should know if I answered that there is no reason for you (or anyone) to believe what I say. You can't verify it and I'm not giving you my name so what is your point? Or are you one of those journalists who believes any anonymous source? Maybe you should take a refresher course in how to evaluate the credibility of sources.
I will say this, however, if what you say is true "I gave up a good job and started working from home 10 years ago to take care of a disabled family member." and I have no way of knowing it is the reason you left work except to believe what you say, I'd be the first to commend you for doing that as I am on disability and had to leave work because of it.
Your having that kind of concern for a loved one only makes me wonder why you think my concern for keeping my loved ones who care for me safe from the possibility of internet intruders is even a topic of discussion with you. My Identity has nothing to do with anything on this forum except as a way for you to deflect from anything I say that debunks what you say.If you can read this, I want to let you know that I didn't report you. You did it to yourself.
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.
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.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.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 listOk 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.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.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?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.You are pathetic, can't you even try to think for yourself. Just because you know nothing of this science as you admitted to start with doesn't mean you have to buy into "lists" and a false statement engineered to snow you.
Glad to see you actually read a statement from the companies you listed which you never would have done had I not challenged you to give me 5, which you couldn't even do. And picking that one absolutely strengthens my case and shows how void of reason you are, and mow I will show you..
Let's take a closer look at the one, the only one statement you came up with even though I asked for five. So which of those organizations said:
"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"
???? How about a link to the statement that put them on the list, is that too hard a task?
What is your reason you didn't even cite the organization that statement belongs to and what problem do you have with giving 5 such organizations and their statements? There are 56 organizations on your list and I can find a couple hundred. Doesn't sound like a difficult task, are you just too lazy or afraid of what we might find? Please just try to answer my questions and I'll teach you how to reason.That quote is easy to locate. Select the text right click it, and select 'Search Google'.
You will find this:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Good to see you take such an interest in scientific issues. Which branch did you study?
By the way, can you explain how a greenhouse works? I mean why it is hotter inside, than outside on a sunny day? I realized that I had forgotten half the physics, the other day. Any pointers would help.Will, I know that quote is easy to find, I have read many of the statements from these organizations that are cited as the reason they are on the list long ago. I was trying to make Don W actually investigate all this for himself instead of just signing onto a list that is nothing but propaganda. It's obvious he never read one statement let alone 5 before he blindly accepted this list as some sort of proof that mankind is causing global warming. It's not. That statement isn't either and he has a lot to learn but won't. His escape from reality is solely based on the totally false premise that the list is the result of the expertise and knowledge of the world's scientific community. It's not.
Don is a guy who probably will believe anything the government says (will you and I know that's wrong) just because he relies on the expertise and knowledge of the politicians and bureaucrats. That's no different than the reasoning he uses to believe scientific propaganda from the people of organizations whose livelihoods depend on getting money for climate research. He should be asking himself if the oil companies are against this for the money why isn't the scientific community for it for the money? They are, and they are far from being as pure as the driven snow given the falsification of data, the failure of computer models and their predictions, climate-gate, etc. etc. too many frauds to mention. His reasoning is exactly the reasoning the propagandists want him to use. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. He avoids answering my questions solely because he can't admit he's wrong and fears I'll make a revealing case from honest answers. If anything is childish it is him. I had students in high school that were more mature than him.Research scientists earn around 50 to 100 thousand dollars a year, usually on short term contracts (you are only as good as your last scientific publication). It is not a route to follow if you want mega bucks.
There are exceptions in academia, of course. Top medical, financial and business related professors can earn millions pa. Pure scientists are paid poorly but occasionally strike it lucky with a patent.
But the main point is, the science is a community based on producing verifiably true data. Every assertion a scientist makes will be checked by rivals and if you get it wrong, you are finished.
The oil industry is dedicated to profit and while there are multiple rules demanding factual reporting of the financials there is never any harm in bending the truth to up the profits.
It really is chalk and cheese.Will,
Michigan State University revealed a first-of-its-kind study on the virtues and values of scientists.
The study, presented at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., surveyed nearly 500 astronomers, biologists, chemists, physicists and earth scientists to identify the core traits of exemplary scientists.
The subjects selected were scientists who had been honored by their respective national organization or society, and the results show that above all, these researchers hold honesty and curiosity in the highest regard, said Robert Pennock, a professor in MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and leader of the study.
Those surveyed, using a scale from zero to ten, were asked to rate attentiveness, collaborative, courage, curiosity, honesty, humility to evidence, meticulousness, objectivity, perseverance and skepticism with regard to their importance for scientific research.
Once they scored each trait, the scientists were asked how each characteristic is or isn’t expressed in science. The subjects also were asked to identify the three most-important virtues.
The study revealed a tacit moral code in scientific culture – one that most researchers hope to be able to pass on to their students, Pennock said.
“The results will have some implications for teaching science,” said Pennock, who conducted the study with Jon Miller of the University of Michigan. “Our teaching shouldn’t stop with the content or science processes. Cultivating the values – like honesty and curiosity – that underlie science should be a part of science education.”
Underscoring the importance of instilling desirable traits in the next generation of scientists, the study tackled how exemplary scientists preserve and transmit these values to their students.
A whopping 94 percent of scientists believe scientific values and virtues can be learned. The number dropped a bit, though, when asked if these traits are actually being transmitted to current graduate students.
“It’s encouraging that 4 out of 5 scientists believe that their values are being embraced by the next generation of students,” Pennock said. “However, it’s somewhat troubling that 22 percent of the scientists surveyed see these valued traits eroding a bit.”
With stories of falsified results making headlines, it’s known that some scientists not only fail to achieve these ideals but directly violate them.
As far as man-made global warming is concerned their is far more going on than "producing verifiably true data" and this has been repeatedly demonstrated as I have shown. There are trillions at stake over years in taxes for governments, the UN, and scientific organizations combined, it's not just a matter of a few 5 or 6 figure salaries for some researchers. Just the fact that so many so called "scientists" have made so many false predictions, fabricated data, have changed the issue from man-made global warming to "climate change" (like who in their right mind says the climate never changes and if the climate really is man made why change the vernacular?) screams there is more here than meets the eye...namely FRAUD. When Obama (the former LIAR in chief) implements rules to kill the coal industry here that even the "experts" say won't affect global warming at all you have to ask what's going on here.
The trade-off that Americans receive for higher electricity rates, unemployment, and lower levels of prosperity is not an appealing one. Even though electricity generation accounts for the single-largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, the estimated reduction is minuscule compared to global greenhouse gas emissions. Using the “Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change,” developed with support from the EPA, climatologists Paul Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels estimate that the climate regulations will avert a meager –0.018 degree Celsius (C) of warming by the year 2100.
In fact, the U.S. could cut its CO2 emissions 100 percent and it would not make a difference in global warming. Using the same climate sensitivity (the warming effect of a doubling of CO2 emissions) as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumes in its modeling, the world would only be 0.137 degree C cooler by 2100. Including 100 percent cuts from the entire industrialized world merely avert warming by 0.278 degree C by the turn of the century.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
As you clearly aren't getting it, let me spell it out.
If you are claiming you personally know more about climate change than all the scientific organizations and institutions that support the international scientific consensus on climate change . . . Then - You - Are - Lying.
I don't know how to say it any clearer.
If you are not claiming that, then like me, you are basing your belief about climate change on secondary sources.
My secondary sources are: organizations and institutions that represent the international scientific community (like the IPCC, which alone represents thousands of scientists from 195 different countries, and publishes reports approved by its members).
Your secondary sources are: the gas and oil industry, individuals who are sponsored by the gas and oil industry, business and commerce organizations and climate-change "skeptic" blogs.
If I'm wrong, then list your most reliable sources right here for all to see, just as I have, and let's compare.
Why only 56 organizations? Because it was not an exhaustive list. That's why I wrote the words "*not an exhaustive list" beneath it.
You mean statements like this one, this one and this one? The fact I choose not to give you five, is not the same as not being able to. Looking for information that doesn't support your view, promotes objectivity. I'm trying (failing) to coach you into being more objective. If, as you say, you have found hundreds of organizations that support the scientific consensus on climate change, that's great. If you can't find five statements on climate change from scientific organizations, then nothing I say can help you.
I look forward to reviewing your list of secondary sources.Hey Don W, Don't Taze Me Bro just got banned. Unless he goes outside Hubpages I don't think he'll be spreading his denial fantasy (unless he uses another alias).
I'm not surprised. I don't mind someone disagreeing with you, me and others like Don, but I don't think the verbal abuse was doing the debate or the site's reputation any good.
Can't say I'm surprised. Shame though, I was looking forward to seeing the list of sources he believes are more reliable than so many of the world's scientific organizations. C'est la vie.
Actually Don W it's not 97% ...it's grown to 98.
Deleted
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?
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!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'.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.)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."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.Do you seriously think a site with the name of CONSERVApedia is politically neutral and without bias?
It seems to me that a site with "conserva" in the name has a conservative point of view.
Boy, you are so smart, a liberal who can actually state the obvious, rare among the loony left.
"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
Very good description of yourself, posting fake news as the topic of description, never acknowledging my comments proving that your post is a lie but attacking me personally instead, asking me what I do for a living, and of course, the final diversion accusing me of being the troll which is what all you liberals do when you've been busted. Like crying wolf, your inevitable resort to name calling me a troll says everything about you and only this about me.
I didn't call you a troll. I posted a definition of one. Are you one?
Is calling someone a liar and loony left a form of trolling or name calling? How is asking what you do for a living a personal attack?More loonyness. No one in their right mind would think that you posting the definition of a troll isn't an attack on me, you calling me a troll, which you have done before along with every liberal I have caught in lies. You people live in LaLa land. I didn't just call anyone a liar, I demonstrated that they are a liar and loony left is just an accurate description, I called myself a right wing extremist - so I trolled myself? You've lost all around promisem, why can't you just admit it and move on?
The new DNC leader Tom Perez, "Trump Didn’t Win The Election" ... the guy must be mentally ill along with everyone who was cheering all the rest of his delusional rhetoric. That is the leader? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
* https://twitter.com/TheDCPolitics/statu … 6054562816Careful colorfulone, you'll be next to be called a troll for plainly telling it like it is.
I believe humanity and life around the global could be discused more seriously in the forums, but that might be too much to ask. It is what it is. Seriously, the climate changes are alarming and even deadly. Certainly, we'd get nowhere banning the expression of free speech of certain terms. We need labels (words) so we can communicate our ideas with one another.
I've been reading about the heatwave gaining in India again. Last year they had a heat index of 165 degrees. A heat index is a 'feels like' temperature, with the combination of humidity and temperature. The heatwave is said to have been brought on by an El Nino weather phenomenon.
Now this title is interesting and scary "El Niño's Odds to Return By Late Summer or Fall Increasing"
* https://weather.com/news/climate/news/e … ane-season
...which as I understand would be unprecedented to occur again so soon. I need to research more on El Nino (and La Nino) to understand it better.
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?
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.
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.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
I believe 100 % in Climate Change , spring ,summer , autumn , winter ................
I've seen this dumb reply twice today. Is this the newest thing on Breitbart?
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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?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.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?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.
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.
I think you should be more concerned about an administration that bans the use of widely accepted scientific terms.
Nobody banned anything - left wing TDS is your problem
Thanks for contributing thoughtful and respectful comments to the discussion. Keep up the good work!
Well at least I'm honest, something a spin meister knows nothing about.
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.
DTMB: Write more than one hub and gain some credibility on this site.
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?Agreed. And why is it that someone who claims to be "honest" is so determined to hide his or her identity?
More deflection from the truth - you really don't know anything but how to try and change a subject do you. To begin with no one can possibly know if anyone's identity on this website is real or not - only a fool would put their real identity up on an open website where controversial subjects are discussed with other anonymous bloggers. That is if you care at all for the safety of those innocent loved ones who reside at home with you. You and they could be targeted by nuts and perverts, hate mongers (the left is full of them) who simply disagree with you or hate you for revealing the truth. Just because you have to get some sort of sick "fame" for revealing your identity, that doesn't make you honest and in a forum like this it makes you foolish - there are all sorts of nuts on the internet or didn't you notice? Insisting I reveal my identity makes me wonder if you aren't one. My identity has nothing to do with the facts that can be found through a little discriminating research - you should try that sometime instead of simply over and over deflecting from the subject at hand and attacking the veracity (veracity that is unquestionably demonstrated anywhere I comment) of the messenger - me.
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.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.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/Lets do it, we'll ban "weather events".
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.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?
Thanks for the links promisem and crankalicious; an interesting read, and very enlightening.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
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 "? - ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
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 .
Money talks. They must be leasing the land because only 7.8% of the land is owned by the government in Vermont.
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.
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.
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.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/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.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.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
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.
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.
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.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?
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?
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.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/yPQckF8R2TIThen 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.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
Part of my own discouragement is Trump's massive budget cuts and upcoming layoffs at the EPA.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Don. W exactly except. Change isn't just global warming...........I know that doesn't fit the alarmism factor though
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?
GAHi 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.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.
GAHi 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.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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
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.
Related Discussions
- 84
It is time to talk about climate again - while we still can.
by Scott Belford 3 weeks ago
I hope all those climate deniers out there are eating crow and feeling bad for helping to get things this bad so...
- 118
Why Are so Many Americans in Denial of Our Impact on Climate Change?
by Arthur Russ 4 years ago
Why Are so Many Americans in Denial of Human’s Contribution to Climate Change, and the Harm its Doing to the Planet?The evidence is so clear, just to name a few:-• The correlation between the burning of fossil fuel since the start of the Industrial Revolution and the increase in Carbon...
- 1759
Climate Change: Let's Have a Fruitful Discussion
by savvydating 8 days ago
Is climate change a threat to our existence? If so, how much time do we have left as a civilization? What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change? How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics? Do you believe Al Gore? What are your thoughts...
- 55
Fun in the Global Warming Debate
by Will Apse 11 years ago
The Koch brothers are climate change skeptics, Their business is chemicals, coal and transportation- three areas likely to be hit hard by any moves to a low carbon economy.They have respect for science, though, and decided to partly fund a new study at Berkeley run by a climate skeptic Professor,...
- 52
Mars Also Undergoing Climate Change as Ice Age Retreats, Study Shows
by Kenna McHugh 4 years ago
The Sun actually has something to do with the Climate Changehttps://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016 … ge-retrea/
- 18
Founder of The Weather Channel: “There Is No Global Warming”
by Susie Lehto 6 years ago
Well worth spending the 36 minutes to listen to the video. * http://www.truthandaction.org/founder-w … warming/2/"There’s been less than one degree temperature change since 1978 and no warming to speak of since 1998. So where is the government getting their information...