Should conservative climate deniers be despised for the threat they pose...

[Greenman]

Hmm interesting questions. How could we possible know what our contribution to CO2 production is. It's not like there are these large fossil fuel producing entities who release press releases about how much they sold and how much they have in reserve.

http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxon-mobil-corporation-announces-2011-reserves-replacement

http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/publications/338.htm

Plus how can we possibly know how much fossil fuel is converted into CO2. It's not like there's some crazy formula for calculating that:
Wikipedia


And to figure out how much CO2 is naturally produced it would be so difficult. Someone would have to measure the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and then do some fancy math to subtract out our production.

Oh and the oceans are becoming more acidic due to the CO2 being absorbed.

It's to bad nobody thought of these questions before you.

I assume you're trying to be coy, but I'm not sure why. My point was that a lot of people are on the band wagon, with zero information. Did you assume that because I find Moonie a fool that I don't accept that climate change is a fact? Just so we're all clear, Moonie having a closed mind doesn't affect my ability to reason. Try looking past your preconceived opinions and read what I wrote.

 

[JimKiler]

to life on earth?

What do you do when an millions of idiots are holding a gun to your head because they live in an alternate universe too afraid to face reality? What to do when a hallucinating psychopath tries to grab the wheel and drive over a cliff for safety?

Conservatives are bad bad poo poo.

You do realize that even if you convert all us climate deniers, that China and other nations could care less and will still spew tons of chemicals into the air, negating any preventative efforts us first world countries contribute to planet earth.

 

[Jaskalas]

You do realize that even if you convert all us climate deniers, that China and other nations could care less and will still spew tons of chemicals into the air, negating any preventative efforts us first world countries contribute to planet earth.

I think their plan is to have us "take the lead" in reducing our standard of living, to the point where nations like China may not feel so competitively threatened as to be gulled into following suit.

After all, if we're laying face down on the ground then maybe playing dead ain't so bad after all. We could even threaten them with war via our CO2-free armies if they don't join us in pre-industrial poverty.

How well do tanks and jets run on alternative fuels?

 

[Moonbeam]

I think their plan is to have us "take the lead" in reducing our standard of living, to the point where nations like China may not feel so competitively threatened as to be gulled into following suit.

After all, if we're laying face down on the ground then maybe playing dead ain't so bad after all. We could even threaten them with war via our CO2-free armies if they don't join us in pre-industrial poverty.

How well do tanks and jets run on alternative fuels?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-29/republicans-move-to-cut-military-s-alternative-fuels.html

Climate deniers threaten even our national defense.

Here is a research paper on conservatives go about creating climate denial.

http://ireswb.cc.ku.edu/~crgc/NSFWorkshop/Readings/Defeating Kyoto.pdf

When the brain defective have been put to sleep, they naturaly imagine that their mental defects are exactly those of folk who can still think.

 

[JimKiler]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-29/republicans-move-to-cut-military-s-alternative-fuels.html

Climate deniers threaten even our national defense.

I understand they want to save money, but do we need a law to save money? Let the Military decide if they want alternative fuel over soldiers.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Are you refering to my link? How about this one?

http://magicvalley.com/news/opinion...cle_d881fd60-3146-11e2-8fc4-0019bb2963f4.html

An opinion piece is proof of your claim?

"Anthony Machado is 23 years old and has a bachelor’s degree in Biology from Franciscan University."

lol

 

[LunarRay]

A role of the Scientist is to falsify an other's position and the more 'famous' the falsified position's author is the more famous we become given we've not produced the proffered conclusion to start with.

We look to 'nit pic' every aspect of a conclusion in the above effort. We are compelled to driven by our training and the grants we seek to fund these efforts. This is an Academic endeavor and one which produces 'truth' based on the current science available.

Having said that, it is also informative to accept that scientists do not go willy nilly on some journey which will become the vehicle of our own downfall within the community. Ego is powerful and motivates us to produce the best science we are capable of.

There was a time when The Conservative in Congress accepted Global Climate changes and then something changed. Were they edified or were they directed by the influences that motivate them through funding to get reelected?
I see the bias of industry and the economics involved to deny Climate change and the bias of the tree hugger to support it. The issue is all about the data and who do you trust and in the face of that data if it supports Climate Warming what can we do about it?

I suggest the data supports Global Warming overwhelmingly and regardless of how the data is parsed it still points in that direction. However, that does not mean the tail has been correctly pinned on the correct donkey. What causes it and to what degree.
We know humans produce greenhouse gas and humans deforest at alarming rates. There can be no denying that. So... is the amount of our human activity a factor that pushes nature beyond its ability to deal with it all? I think that bit is the key. If the marginal affect of our activity - given we can't do anything about naturally occurring greenhouse production - is detrimental to the life on this planet should we not attempt to curtail at least below some estimated amount what we do? That seems to be prudent. But what about the cost and more importantly what about the rest of the world... That aspect is the first most important thing to address. Getting world wide consensus to work toward reduction of greenhouse gas production has to be the first and most important aspect of any attempt to reduce what may be only a fraction of the issue but that fraction may be the only thing if reduced that can alter this Warming issue.... Me thinks!

 

[Moonbeam]

An opinion piece is proof of your claim?

"Anthony Machado is 23 years old and has a bachelor’s degree in Biology from Franciscan University."

lol

lol yourself. The guy is only quoting other research, research which Forbes says is pathetic and of no value at all, based on asking two irrelevant questions of a small number of scientists. Since I have done a much better job of debunking my own link than you have, age bias much, why don't you go find where the Forbes opinion is wrong.

The whole purpose of climate denial is to create doubt so that no action is taken. As you are doubtless aware, there is lots of doubt. Surely a conservative mind as sharp as your own will see that if the propose of climatee denial is to sow doubt and there's lits of climat deniers than climate denial is real, eh?

 

[Moonbeam]

A role of the Scientist is to falsify an other's position and the more 'famous' the falsified position's author is the more famous we become given we've not produced the proffered conclusion to start with.

We look to 'nit pic' every aspect of a conclusion in the above effort. We are compelled to driven by our training and the grants we seek to fund these efforts. This is an Academic endeavor and one which produces 'truth' based on the current science available.

Having said that, it is also informative to accept that scientists do not go willy nilly on some journey which will become the vehicle of our own downfall within the community. Ego is powerful and motivates us to produce the best science we are capable of.

There was a time when The Conservative in Congress accepted Global Climate changes and then something changed. Were they edified or were they directed by the influences that motivate them through funding to get reelected?
I see the bias of industry and the economics involved to deny Climate change and the bias of the tree hugger to support it. The issue is all about the data and who do you trust and in the face of that data if it supports Climate Warming what can we do about it?

I suggest the data supports Global Warming overwhelmingly and regardless of how the data is parsed it still points in that direction. However, that does not mean the tail has been correctly pinned on the correct donkey. What causes it and to what degree.
We know humans produce greenhouse gas and humans deforest at alarming rates. There can be no denying that. So... is the amount of our human activity a factor that pushes nature beyond its ability to deal with it all? I think that bit is the key. If the marginal affect of our activity - given we can't do anything about naturally occurring greenhouse production - is detrimental to the life on this planet should we not attempt to curtail at least below some estimated amount what we do? That seems to be prudent. But what about the cost and more importantly what about the rest of the world... That aspect is the first most important thing to address. Getting world wide consensus to work toward reduction of greenhouse gas production has to be the first and most important aspect of any attempt to reduce what may be only a fraction of the issue but that fraction may be the only thing if reduced that can alter this Warming issue.... Me thinks!

Thinking is like peeing. Once you start it's really hard to stop in mid stream. And what's the point? With global warming there'll be no wiz holes in the snow.

 

[Moonbeam]

On a scale from the less to the more brain dead, here are some illuminating findings:

The politics of global warming: A study conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, found the following concerning the general public's opinions about global warming:

• 78% of Democrats, 71% of Independents, 53% of Republicans, and 34% of Tea Party members believe that global warming is happening

• 72% of Democrats, 53% of Independents, 38% of Republicans, and 24% of Tea Party members worry about global warming

• 55% of Democrats say that most scientists think global warming is happening, while 56% of Republicans and 69% of Tea Party members say that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

lol yourself. The guy is only quoting other research, research which Forbes says is pathetic and of no value at all, based on asking two irrelevant questions of a small number of scientists. Since I have done a much better job of debunking my own link than you have, age bias much, why don't you go find where the Forbes opinion is wrong.

The whole purpose of climate denial is to create doubt so that no action is taken. As you are doubtless aware, there is lots of doubt. Surely a conservative mind as sharp as your own will see that if the propose of climatee denial is to sow doubt and there's lits of climat deniers than climate denial is real, eh?

I would like to point out to you, once again, that what these scientists agree upon is that they are 90% to 99% sure that AGW is a "major influence" on global warming. Scientifically speaking, that is the equivalent of 'ballparking it.'

Nor, as you claim, is no action being taken, at least here in the US and in most other first-world countries. Regulations have been in place for some time to restrict CO2 output (along with other pollutants) and those regulations are gradually getting stricter over time. We are also gradually moving towards other more environmentally-friendly solutions like hybrid/electric vehicles, reduced emisions on combustion-engine automobiles, tighter emmission standards on electrical generation plants, etc.

I mean, honestly, what do you expect we do? So far nobody has invented an effective carbon dioxide sucking vacuum that can recycle our atmosphere to remove all the GW gasses. If you are so concerned about AGW, as you claim, why don't you get to work on that instead of purely using the issue as a foil and fig leaf to beat dem thar ebil conservatives over the head?

Don't be part of the problem, Moonpie, be part of the solution.

Love and kisses,

TLC

 

[Paratus]

I assume you're trying to be coy, but I'm not sure why. My point was that a lot of people are on the band wagon, with zero information. Did you assume that because I find Moonie a fool that I don't accept that climate change is a fact? Just so we're all clear, Moonie having a closed mind doesn't affect my ability to reason. Try looking past your preconceived opinions and read what I wrote.

Glad you understand climate change is happening.:thumbsup:

However, I read what you wrote and it is the same method of arguing against climate change that many deniers use.

I'm not sure why you trolling as a denier means I have a problem understanding what you wrote. You were much cleared in the quote above.

 

[Paratus]

I would like to point out to you, once again, that what these scientists agree upon is that they are 90% to 99% sure that AGW is a "major influence" on global warming. Scientifically speaking, that is the equivalent of 'ballparking it.'

Nor, as you claim, is no action being taken, at least here in the US and in most other first-world countries. Regulations have been in place for some time to restrict CO2 output (along with other pollutants) and those regulations are gradually getting stricter over time. We are also gradually moving towards other more environmentally-friendly solutions like hybrid/electric vehicles, reduced emisions on combustion-engine automobiles, tighter emmission standards on electrical generation plants, etc.

I mean, honestly, what do you expect we do? So far nobody has invented an effective carbon dioxide sucking vacuum that can recycle our atmosphere to remove all the GW gasses. If you are so concerned about AGW, as you claim, why don't you get to work on that instead of purely using the issue as a foil and fig leaf to beat dem thar ebil conservatives over the head?

Don't be part of the problem, Moonpie, be part of the solution.

Love and kisses,

TLC

Well insurance companies are assessing the likely impacts global warming. So that "ball park" figure is enough for them to do the assessment and react accordingly:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-09-09/commentary/30750008_1_climate-change-climate-research-community-global-warming

“USAA purchases enough reinsurance and holds enough capital to cover potential impacts of global warming.” — USAA

“With respect to longer term potential effects of climate change, such as health and food supply issues or potential depopulation of certain vulnerable areas, we have no exposure to vulnerable areas such as the Arctic or sub-Saharan Africa,” — Assured Guaranty, bond insurance

http://www.insurancenetworking.com/news/insurance-climate-change-risk-ceres-30007-1.html

“As a member of the global insurance industry, we have witnessed the increased impact of weather-related events on our industry and around the world,” said Mark Way, head of Swiss Re's sustainability and climate change activities in the Americas. “A warming climate will only add to this trend of increasing losses, which is why action is needed now.”

So these are big business with CEOs and shareholders who are spending resources on GW assessments based on these "ball park" estimates by "money chasing scientists".

Better make sure you don't have any of these lunatic GW believing billion dollar companies in your portfolio TLC, or your just helping perpetuate the myth.

 

[Paratus]

The vast majority of CO2 is naturally produced. Simply calculating the amount of CO2 produced is a herculean task far beyond our capabilities because the world literally runs on CO2 - plants require CO2 and plants are primary producers. The best we can do is to calculate the increase in CO2 and make some rough calculations based on measurements of isotopes as to what percentage we produce. (Assuming non-preferential uptake anyway, and ignoring that most man-made CO2 production occurs away from most CO2 consumption. And ignoring that C13 concentration has often dropped when CO2 increases - which may well turn out to be an artifact of the proxies used. And ignoring that such events as volcanic eruptions and tectonic activity may also emit old and depleted CO2.) This gives us an estimate of the excess CO2 that is naturally produced. We can then make a very, very rough estimate about how much is naturally produced by measuring production and consumption in sample environments and projecting the results, but even within those sample environments we're making only a rough estimate because most CO2 produced or consumed is used to maintain life processes, not to, say, add body mass. Nonetheless, we can say with certainty that humans produce a very small percentage of all CO2, and we can say with certainty that one cannot calculate what percentage of CO2 we produce simply by subtracting out what we calculate we produce from what is there to be measured.

Werepossim

Plants are not producers of CO2. They consume it during photo synthesis. If you are referring to the fact that they can release CO2 when burned or decomposing, they would be considered CO2 neutral as the CO2 they release was already pulled from the air.

Fossil fuels on the other hand are releasing CO2 that hasn't been in circulation for millions of years.

We're also cutting and burning large swaths of forest across the planet which reduces the ability for plants to take up the excess CO2.

So with those inconsistencies in your statements can you try to explain to me again what your position is?

Thanks

 

[Lizardman]

Bill Nye the science guy? For fucks sake.

Here more explanation of how the climate is changing this time with video and animation!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/online-video-lectures-on-climate-change/

More info about denialism can be found in the Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, chapter 10.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ji...&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Well insurance companies are assessing the likely impacts global warming. So that "ball park" figure is enough for them to do the assessment and react accordingly:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/201...nge-climate-research-community-global-warming





http://www.insurancenetworking.com/news/insurance-climate-change-risk-ceres-30007-1.html



So these are big business with CEOs and shareholders who are spending resources on GW assessments based on these "ball park" estimates by "money chasing scientists".

Better make sure you don't have any of these lunatic GW believing billion dollar companies in your portfolio TLC, or your just helping perpetuate the myth.

Once again for the acronym-impaired. GW != AGW.

My responses are addressing the AGW acolytes and what we should do to intervene in man's contribution to GW. Obviously we don't want to screw with the natural cycle of things. Or do you believe we should try to mess with mother nature's contribution to GW as well?

 

[uclaLabrat]

The vast majority of CO2 is naturally produced.
From what? As far as I know, the only production of CO2 in nature comes from animals exhaling and natural forest fires.

Simply calculating the amount of CO2 produced is a herculean task far beyond our capabilities because the world literally runs on CO2

Not really...I imagine global CO2 production closely mimics consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas, which should be pretty easy to get a reasonable CO2 production value from.

plants require CO2 and plants are primary producers. The best we can do is to calculate the increase in CO2 and make some rough calculations based on measurements of isotopes as to what percentage we produce. (Assuming non-preferential uptake anyway, and ignoring that most man-made CO2 production occurs away from most CO2 consumption. And ignoring that C13 concentration has often dropped when CO2 increases - which may well turn out to be an artifact of the proxies used. And ignoring that such events as volcanic eruptions and tectonic activity may also emit old and depleted CO2.)
I don't even really know what you're saying here, my only contribution is the isotopic distribution of C13 is essentially constant, distribution of CO2 released from humans will be pretty evenly distributed due to weather, and I don't think tectonic activity releases a whole lot of CO2. SO2, sure, but not so much CO2.
This gives us an estimate of the excess CO2 that is naturally produced. We can then make a very, very rough estimate about how much is naturally produced by measuring production and consumption in sample environments and projecting the results, but even within those sample environments we're making only a rough estimate because most CO2 produced or consumed is used to maintain life processes, not to, say, add body mass. Nonetheless, we can say with certainty that humans produce a very small percentage of all CO2, and we can say with certainty that one cannot calculate what percentage of CO2 we produce simply by subtracting out what we calculate we produce from what is there to be measured.
And again, I think you miss the point. We can obviate all the of machinations you just described by understanding one very important fact: we can closely model how much anthropogenic CO2 is released based on the fact that we know to a reasonable degree of accuracy how much fossil fuel is burned on an annual basis around the globe. We also know fairly accurately how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. We could probably then extrapolate over the years of the global CO2 concentration to deduce how much of the CO2 we've put in the air and has remained in the air, which will allow us to judge the effects of natural sequestration feedback loops.

We know we're dumping millions of metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, that's not up for debate. We also know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, also not up for debate. What we don't know is how much our activity is going to affect the climate...we know it will, but to what degree? And can we develop means to sequester CO2 that will reduce our atmospheric CO2 input?

In bold.

 

[monovillage]

Well insurance companies are assessing the likely impacts global warming. So that "ball park" figure is enough for them to do the assessment and react accordingly:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-09-09/commentary/30750008_1_climate-change-climate-research-community-global-warming
http://www.insurancenetworking.com/news/insurance-climate-change-risk-ceres-30007-1.html
So these are big business with CEOs and shareholders who are spending resources on GW assessments based on these "ball park" estimates by "money chasing scientists".

Better make sure you don't have any of these lunatic GW believing billion dollar companies in your portfolio TLC, or your just helping perpetuate the myth.

More information why such a mega corporate business as reinsurance loves, and I do mean LOVES the whole idea of Catastrophic Global Warming and the gullible clowns that fuel it.

From an expert climate scientist.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/12/politics-new-catastrophe-reinsurance.html
Politics: A New Catastrophe Reinsurance Risk

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/09/risk-and-reinsurance.html
Risk and Reinsurance

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/10/disasters-wanted-math-of-capitalizing.html
Disasters Wanted: The Math of Capitalizing on Florida's Risk

 

[monovillage]

From what? As far as I know, the only production of CO2 in nature comes from animals exhaling and natural forest fires.

The stupid, it burns!

 

[Paratus]

Once again for the acronym-impaired. GW != AGW.

My responses are addressing the AGW acolytes and what we should do to intervene in man's contribution to GW. Obviously we don't want to screw with the natural cycle of things. Or do you believe we should try to mess with mother nature's contribution to GW as well?

You presuppose the we are not already unintentionally messing with the natural cycle of things and that the natural cycle of things is "always good for us".

Ice ages are bad for us. Hot and dry is bad for us. Hot and humid is bad for us. I mean do you think the entire world wants to live in Houston Tx?

So yes I'm saying lets understand how the climate works and how we are and can effect it. And then make the changes that benefit us the most.

So I understand your position.

Do you believe that the climate is generally warming?
Do you believe that humans are causing a substantial part of that warming?
If yes to either of those, is there any concerted action we should take to mitigate it?

Lastly, do you think we'll end up paying anyways to adapt to changes in the climate?

I'm not trolling here. Just want to understand your position.

 

[uclaLabrat]

The stupid, it burns!

Enlighten me, obi wan.

Otherwise, stop trolling you ignorant fuckwit

 

[Paratus]

More information why such a mega corporate business as reinsurance loves, and I do mean LOVES the whole idea of Catastrophic Global Warming and the gullible clowns that fuel it.

From an expert climate scientist.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/12/politics-new-catastrophe-reinsurance.html
Politics: A New Catastrophe Reinsurance Risk

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/09/risk-and-reinsurance.html
Risk and Reinsurance

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/10/disasters-wanted-math-of-capitalizing.html
Disasters Wanted: The Math of Capitalizing on Florida's Risk

So mono are you denying GW this week or just AGW? Don't want to put word in your mouth.

 

[Joepublic2]

Put moonbeam onto a rocket, fire it into mars (not to, into so the martians can't fire it back). Earth cools down about 5C from lack of super-heated shit spewing out of his mouth all day while it builds up a warmer, more human habitable (after everything has composted for a few hundred years that is) environment on mars.

Enlighten me, obi wan.

Otherwise, stop trolling you ignorant fuckwit

LOL UCLA must have lowered their entrance requirements (by a lot)

 

[Moonbeam]

Glad you understand climate change is happening.:thumbsup:

However, I read what you wrote and it is the same method of arguing against climate change that many deniers use.

I'm not sure why you trolling as a denier means I have a problem understanding what you wrote. You were much cleared in the quote above.

He hates himself and blames me for telling him. He follows me around trying to make me feel the pain I know he feels because I feel mine. I have seen this a million times but some folk have it worse than others. He doesn't give a fig about climate.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Do you believe that the climate is generally warming?
Do you believe that humans are causing a substantial part of that warming?
If yes to either of those, is there any concerted action we should take to mitigate it?

Lastly, do you think we'll end up paying anyways to adapt to changes in the climate?

I'm not trolling here. Just want to understand your position.

There is no doubt that the climate is currently in a warming phase.

I don't know whether or not humans are causing a "substantial" part of that warming. We may be 10%, 50, or 100% responsible. The problem is that science, at this point in time, cannot give us or seem to agree upon a reasonable percentage beyond saying the equivalent of 'We are pretty confident man's contribution is having a major influence.'

Any mitigation should only involve reducing mankind's CO2 output so atmospheric CO2 can begin to return to natural levels. However, it has to be done at a pace that doesn't hamstring the world's economy in the process. What good is it if we save the children from man's contribution to climate change while throwing them into an economic abyss in the process?

Eventually man will have to pay for climate change because we will be forced to adapt. A prediction from TLC: When the next Ice Age comes, and it will, northern liberals are going to have a sudden change of heart about living in the South.