Because the U.N. are such experts at all they do. Last year a Dutch U.N. official offhandedly remarked that “even if” global warming isn’t real, we should radically cut back on carbon emissions for the next 50 years “just in case”. Great. We’ll freeze and starve in the dark for five decades and then the U.N. can tell us, “Oops! Sorry-false alarm! You can go back to your shattered lives now.”
It’s impossible to have any dialogue with someone who won’t engage but just keeps repeating the same misconceptions and falsehoods no matter what. Some will repeat the claim that “the same global warming crowd were saying we were causing a new ice age” even when the proof to the contrary is provided to them. Some will claim that there has been no warming for the last 17 years, even when that claim has been rebutted over and over again. Or the claim that 1934 was the hottest year. Here’s what skepticalscience says about this claim:+“The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking fourth behind 2012, 2006, and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet. The U.S.‘s land area accounts for only 2% of the earth’s total surface area. Despite the U.S. heat in 1934, the year was not so hot over the rest of the planet, and is barely holding onto a place in the hottest 50 years in the global rankings (today it ranks 49th). Climate change skeptics like to point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. However, this is another example of “cherry-picking” a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.”http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm+When I first started to get interested in this topic I didn’t have an opinion. I was very interested to read both sides to see who had the better evidence and the better theory. I have found that there is abundant evidence that the climate is changing and that human actions are largely responsible. I have taken the time to read extensively the arguments of those who disagree, and I find over and over again that they just don’t make their case. I have taken the time (some would say wasted the time) to look into a lot of what Harley posts and I find consistently that the sites he refers to are false, misleading, or don’t support his claims at all. I’ve asked over and over for those who don’t believe in climate change to give me references to solid science. Churchill was right responded with a list of six hundred items; I checked the first twenty and not a single one of them was based in real science. I don’t have endless time to spend on this, so I asked him to recommend one or two of the six hundred that he found most convincing, but he didn’t reply. I think scientific claims need to be tested. I think it’s important that the skeptics get to make their case. So far I would have to say that the case for climate change caused by human actions is very robust.
Vote early! Vote often!This election dayVote early! Vote often!The American WayVote early! Vote oftenAnd the Force even mayBe with you (though doubtful)This election day
IN FACT:
Considering the tone ofAlmost all of the debateI’d like to draw and quarterEvery single candidate
Thanks to you for a truly excellent post, and thanks to Michaelwme for a very good link. What many of the ultra conservative deniers do never do is not only not back up their claims that Rapid Global Climate Change is incorrect. But also never take up the following reasons for stopping the burning of fossil fuels either:
(1) In the US and Europe we need to stop the burning of fossil fuels for both energy in gneral and transportation specifically. This will stop our depending upon areas of the world that are not only sometimes our very opponents, but also are at best terribly unstable. Even thinking conservatives agree on this.
(2) What may be at least somewhat ironic is that oil truly is one of the most important commodities for our very civilization. It is used in manufacturing for both lubrication of machines and the cooling of the maching of materials. It is also used for the petro chemical industry in the making of plastics and materials for medicines, and even fertilizers in food growth and production. Oil IS a very precious commodity, and the worst and most wasteful use for this material is to simply burn it up into the atmosphere to generate energy when there are multiple other ways and materials for that energy generation!
(3)And that very burning is polluting our thin and delicate atmosphere, which in turn also affects the rivers, seas, and even the oceans and lands that we live upon. Besides which, if we really want to bring health care costs down, we should be limiting this pollution for the sakes of billions of human being’s lungs, including people like myself that have chronic bronchitis or COPD.
Please note that all of these very good reasons for first limiting and eventually even stopping the burning of fossil fuels have nothing to do with Rapid Global CLimate Change at all. However, that would indeed be reason #4.
I hate to say it, but Harleyquinn is actually correct about the science not being “settled”. Science is never settled. Overwhelming evidence toward toward a conclusion is just that, overwhelming evidence. Albert Einstein said you can never prove his theories, only disprove them with one piece of contradictory evidence. But, sorry Harley, “it’s cold in January” is not evidence to the contrary. Nor is hating Al Gore. We are all waiting with baited breath for some actual contrary evidence.Another opinion or alternate theory is not contrary evidence either.Scientific evidence requires actual data measurements.
Harley, I guess it was too subtle for you to realize my erlier comment was not a compliment.Your comments are as much meaningless drivel as are your rightwing links.
If the climatologists were lying, the first people to notice would be other scientists in atmospheric science, followed closely by the rest of the scientific community. But no such protest has arisen. I don’t think the deniers realize what a huge conspiracy it would take for fake science to get off the ground within real science. It is implausible on that ground alone.
aardvarkseyes over 9 years ago
Wow – Grandmother Nature is nasty!
pam Miner over 9 years ago
Is anyone surprized?
manteo16nc over 9 years ago
Because the U.N. are such experts at all they do. Last year a Dutch U.N. official offhandedly remarked that “even if” global warming isn’t real, we should radically cut back on carbon emissions for the next 50 years “just in case”. Great. We’ll freeze and starve in the dark for five decades and then the U.N. can tell us, “Oops! Sorry-false alarm! You can go back to your shattered lives now.”
moosemin over 9 years ago
Yes, but their fortunes are intact, and still growing! That’s what counts in America today!
jones.knik over 9 years ago
In the 70’s the same global warming crowd were saying we were causing a new ice age. Their mouths are full of tongue.
lonecat over 9 years ago
It’s impossible to have any dialogue with someone who won’t engage but just keeps repeating the same misconceptions and falsehoods no matter what. Some will repeat the claim that “the same global warming crowd were saying we were causing a new ice age” even when the proof to the contrary is provided to them. Some will claim that there has been no warming for the last 17 years, even when that claim has been rebutted over and over again. Or the claim that 1934 was the hottest year. Here’s what skepticalscience says about this claim:+“The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking fourth behind 2012, 2006, and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet. The U.S.‘s land area accounts for only 2% of the earth’s total surface area. Despite the U.S. heat in 1934, the year was not so hot over the rest of the planet, and is barely holding onto a place in the hottest 50 years in the global rankings (today it ranks 49th). Climate change skeptics like to point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. However, this is another example of “cherry-picking” a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.”http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm+When I first started to get interested in this topic I didn’t have an opinion. I was very interested to read both sides to see who had the better evidence and the better theory. I have found that there is abundant evidence that the climate is changing and that human actions are largely responsible. I have taken the time to read extensively the arguments of those who disagree, and I find over and over again that they just don’t make their case. I have taken the time (some would say wasted the time) to look into a lot of what Harley posts and I find consistently that the sites he refers to are false, misleading, or don’t support his claims at all. I’ve asked over and over for those who don’t believe in climate change to give me references to solid science. Churchill was right responded with a list of six hundred items; I checked the first twenty and not a single one of them was based in real science. I don’t have endless time to spend on this, so I asked him to recommend one or two of the six hundred that he found most convincing, but he didn’t reply. I think scientific claims need to be tested. I think it’s important that the skeptics get to make their case. So far I would have to say that the case for climate change caused by human actions is very robust.
zekedog55 over 9 years ago
Michael wme, you post some really good stuff…
Thanks for all the thought provoking link you so graciously share with us, my man!
Godfreydaniel over 9 years ago
Vote early! Vote often!This election dayVote early! Vote often!The American WayVote early! Vote oftenAnd the Force even mayBe with you (though doubtful)This election day
IN FACT:
Considering the tone ofAlmost all of the debateI’d like to draw and quarterEvery single candidate
frodo1008 over 9 years ago
Thanks to you for a truly excellent post, and thanks to Michaelwme for a very good link. What many of the ultra conservative deniers do never do is not only not back up their claims that Rapid Global Climate Change is incorrect. But also never take up the following reasons for stopping the burning of fossil fuels either:
(1) In the US and Europe we need to stop the burning of fossil fuels for both energy in gneral and transportation specifically. This will stop our depending upon areas of the world that are not only sometimes our very opponents, but also are at best terribly unstable. Even thinking conservatives agree on this.
(2) What may be at least somewhat ironic is that oil truly is one of the most important commodities for our very civilization. It is used in manufacturing for both lubrication of machines and the cooling of the maching of materials. It is also used for the petro chemical industry in the making of plastics and materials for medicines, and even fertilizers in food growth and production. Oil IS a very precious commodity, and the worst and most wasteful use for this material is to simply burn it up into the atmosphere to generate energy when there are multiple other ways and materials for that energy generation!
(3)And that very burning is polluting our thin and delicate atmosphere, which in turn also affects the rivers, seas, and even the oceans and lands that we live upon. Besides which, if we really want to bring health care costs down, we should be limiting this pollution for the sakes of billions of human being’s lungs, including people like myself that have chronic bronchitis or COPD.
Please note that all of these very good reasons for first limiting and eventually even stopping the burning of fossil fuels have nothing to do with Rapid Global CLimate Change at all. However, that would indeed be reason #4.
Motivemagus over 9 years ago
Oh, easily. Heck, we could go all the way and turn Earth into another Venus if we really work at it.
Miss Demure Premium Member over 9 years ago
Thank you for your rebuttals to Harleyquinn! He rants and spews inaccurate information. And, above all, he hates Obama.
oneoldhat over 9 years ago
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
BaltoBill over 9 years ago
I hate to say it, but Harleyquinn is actually correct about the science not being “settled”. Science is never settled. Overwhelming evidence toward toward a conclusion is just that, overwhelming evidence. Albert Einstein said you can never prove his theories, only disprove them with one piece of contradictory evidence. But, sorry Harley, “it’s cold in January” is not evidence to the contrary. Nor is hating Al Gore. We are all waiting with baited breath for some actual contrary evidence.Another opinion or alternate theory is not contrary evidence either.Scientific evidence requires actual data measurements.
BaltoBill over 9 years ago
Harley, I guess it was too subtle for you to realize my erlier comment was not a compliment.Your comments are as much meaningless drivel as are your rightwing links.
Earle H Landry over 9 years ago
If the climatologists were lying, the first people to notice would be other scientists in atmospheric science, followed closely by the rest of the scientific community. But no such protest has arisen. I don’t think the deniers realize what a huge conspiracy it would take for fake science to get off the ground within real science. It is implausible on that ground alone.