Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

Status
Not open for further replies.

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,195
3,329
187
I’m not a denier.....just wanted to post another viewpoint re: climate change.
And what was that other viewpoint? From what I read he only disagreed with the media overhype, not the report itself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

rjtide

1st Team
Dec 15, 1999
522
161
162
AL
And what was that other viewpoint? From what I read he only disagreed with the media overhype, not the report itself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Exactly right...Some of the hyperbole associated with climate change.....end of times.....unprecedented flooding/weather events etc that are mentioned.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
Exactly right...Some of the hyperbole associated with climate change.....end of times.....unprecedented flooding/weather events etc that are mentioned.
Why do I care what an economist/political scientist thinks about climate science? Especially one who has been accused of misrepresenting scientific findings multiple times in the past?

Stepping back, the issue with global warming hasn't been a scientific one for decades: it's a political problem, pure and simple. You're asking people to make sacrifices now to prevent catastrophe in the future. That's a hard sell, politically. Some economists have argued that the cost of relocating large coastal populations, irrigating areas that will experience drought, rebuilding after more frequent storms etc. will be lower than the cost of enacting preventative policies like carbon taxation and funding renewable research now. That's an argument economists can make (and have made). I happen to disagree, since anyone who's ever done any project knows that failing to anticipate problems is almost always worse and more costly than accounting for them in advance. Further, it will remain a difficult political problem once the question changes to: do we make economic sacrifices now to relocate millions of Indonesians, or do we just let them die?

But when an economist argues that the climate science consensus is exaggerated? Nah. He's speaking outside his field, has a history of misrepresentation, and I don't find his to be a credible opinion. There's not always two sides to an issue. Sometimes there's five, and sometimes there's only one.
 

rjtide

1st Team
Dec 15, 1999
522
161
162
AL
Why do I care what an economist/political scientist thinks about climate science? Especially one who has been accused of misrepresenting scientific findings multiple times in the past?

Stepping back, the issue with global warming hasn't been a scientific one for decades: it's a political problem, pure and simple. You're asking people to make sacrifices now to prevent catastrophe in the future. That's a hard sell, politically. Some economists have argued that the cost of relocating large coastal populations, irrigating areas that will experience drought, rebuilding after more frequent storms etc. will be lower than the cost of enacting preventative policies like carbon taxation and funding renewable research now. That's an argument economists can make (and have made). I happen to disagree, since anyone who's ever done any project knows that failing to anticipate problems is almost always worse and more costly than accounting for them in advance. Further, it will remain a difficult political problem once the question changes to: do we make economic sacrifices now to relocate millions of Indonesians, or do we just let them die?

But when an economist argues that the climate science consensus is exaggerated? Nah. He's speaking outside his field, has a history of misrepresentation, and I don't find his to be a credible opinion. There's not always two sides to an issue. Sometimes there's five, and sometimes there's only one.

Valid points noted above. From my very simplistic view on this......to enact macro level preventive measures will be an extremely tough sell especially if they’re advertised to cost in the tens of trillions of dollars. I’m not personally arguing against the scientific consensus on climate change per se but absolutely will argue against the wide scale economic solutions to climate change. Let me be clear.....ain’t no way I’m willing to personally pay more in taxes in order to ‘help’ climate change. I’m doing my part now.....driving an electric car, adopting a vegetarian diet, installing solar panels on my house and business. That’s where the focus ought to be.....imo.....on encouraging personal/lifestyle/micro changes in order to help Mother Nature. Imagine taking several hundred thousand internal combustion engines off the road every year starting in 2020 or 2021 in the USA when electric vehicles will be more widely available. Or imagine if every year 1-2% of households in India and/or China go solar intensive......imagine the long term reduction in individual carbon footprints and seeing how that helps with reducing the long term adverse effects of climate change. That’s all I’m sayin.
 

Elefantman

Hall of Fame
Sep 18, 2007
5,935
3,855
187
R Can Saw
From WSJ I know some may not be able to see this article, but it's about the protest going on in France now over tax hikes.

The carbon tax revolt is world-wide. Voters in Washington state last month rejected a carbon tax that would have started at $15 per ton of emissions and climbed $2 a year indefinitely. Washington ranks 25th among American states in carbon emissions and when we tried to estimate its contribution to global emissions our calculator couldn’t handle a number that small. Gov. Jay Inslee and green activists nonetheless wanted voters to pay $2.3 billion in taxes over five years.
A carbon tax is in theory a more efficient way than regulation to reduce carbon emissions. But after decades of global conferences, forests of reports, dire television documentaries, celebrity appeals, school-curriculum overhauls and media bludgeoning, voters don’t believe that climate change justifies policies that would raise their cost of living and hurt the economy.
This is the problem with the whole global warming issue. Like the war on poverty, the war on drugs, just give the government more money to "solve" our problems. Maybe we are heading for cataclysmic global disaster, maybe not. But one thing is for certain, there will be politicians who think taking more of our money will solve our problems.
 

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,195
3,329
187
If - someone tells me (and can prove it with scientific evidence) that I’m going to die in five years unless I triple the money I pay in taxes ( and can prove using similar scientific evidence), which will guarantee me 25 more years of life, what would I do?
I know what I’d do - but I also know more than a few “death before taxes” fruitcakes who would be dead in five years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
When I'm thinking about trying to reason with someone, I like to ask a few general questions to get an idea whether trying to is something worth the effort.

Do you believe in evolution?

Do you believe in man induced climate change?

If I'm still looking for a yes, my third question is

Do you believe in gravity?

If I get less that two answered yes, I realize there's no use trying. Two out of three, maybe you can reach them but it's an uphill climb.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,620
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
Fortunately, anthropogenic global warming/climate change ceased to be a scientific debate years ago. (hint - its caused by mankind)

Unfortunately, anthropogenic global warming/climate change continues to be a political debate.:rolleye2:
 
Last edited:

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,154
44,877
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
When I'm thinking about trying to reason with someone, I like to ask a few general questions to get an idea whether trying to is something worth the effort.

Do you believe in evolution?

Do you believe in man induced climate change?

If I'm still looking for a yes, my third question is

Do you believe in gravity?

If I get less that two answered yes, I realize there's no use trying. Two out of three, maybe you can reach them but it's an uphill climb.
over the years, i have developed a few filters that do a pretty good job of letting me know if i should take someone seriously or not.
 

rjtide

1st Team
Dec 15, 1999
522
161
162
AL
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sparks-widespread-environmental-protests.html

Herein is a major problem......this is a global issue.....green, polluted snow in Russia. I’m not an environmental scientist or an industrialist but I gotta think what’s going on in russia with what’s outlined in the linked article is happening in many other countries as far as pollution from factories etc is concerned.....I know it is in India cause I saw it when I was visiting family in Mumbai and when the fam and I went to the Taj Mahal. Now it may not be raining or snowing green everywhere but surely it’s in all our best interests to help encourage other countries to improve their environmental regulations and to make meaningful improvement in improving our own air/water/soil quality
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,620
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
Carbon dioxide – the gas scientists say is most responsible for global warming – has reached levels in our atmosphere not seen in 3 million years, scientists announced this week in a new study.
At that time, sea levels were as much as 65 feet higher than they are now, Greenland was mostly green and Antarctica had trees.
“It seems we’re now pushing our home planet beyond any climatic conditions experienced during the entire current geological period, the Quaternary,” said study lead author Matteo Willeit of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “A period that started almost 3 million years ago and saw human civilization beginning only 11,000 years ago. So, the modern climate change we see is big, really big; even by standards of Earth history.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/t...n-years-study-says/ar-BBVCFVQ?ocid=spartanntp

 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,620
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
July confirmed as hottest month recorded
(CNN)July 2019 has replaced July 2016 as the hottest month on record, with meteorologists saying that global temperatures marginally exceeded the previous record.
The European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Programme, which analyzes temperature data from around the planet, said that July was around 0.56 °C warmer than the global average temperature between 1981-2010.
That's slightly hotter than July 2016, when the world was in the throes of one of the strongest El Niño events on record.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/world/hottest-july-on-record-climate-sci-intl/index.html
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
A recent report really got to me...the average temp for a three month summer season in most of the United States will be 100 degrees. The prediction is this will be the new normal in 25 years.

In north Alabama, we might have a week of consecutive 100 degree days...it's awful. I can't imagine 90 days in a row of it. Every year.

Maybe if Trump fires enough climate scientists we can go into this blindly without understanding what's happening.

One last random thought...in my opinion the skeptics are basically ensuring that in the near future people will live in an environment that is hot as hell. But on judgement day, they may find that they get to spend eternity in another very hot place.

Kidding aside, I do think it is a sin to destroy the planet's ecosystem to maximize current profit, with no concern for long term effects of those policies.
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
I read two things this morning that I thought were relevant to this thread.

The first was an essay on Talking Points Memo, titled Red State Opposition to Climate Action May Not Remain Entrenched Forever. In it, the writer argues that the actual heating up of our region might finally bring the ones preventing a meaningful solution from being put in place around. I think it's a sound argument, but I also know how stubborn and pigheaded Southerners can be, so we will see.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/red-state-economic-impacts-climate-change

The next thing I read was the twelve page thread on the football board where people are complaining about the heat at day games...we want our share of night games. On the 11th page, someone finally made reference to the fact that things are only going to get hotter, because of man induced climate change.

I was lucky enough to get to watch an A Day game from one of the luxury boxes upstairs. I was floored at the accommodations they have made for those that can afford them. The hardest thing I had accepting was that the box was open to the field, so you could enjoy the crowd noise during the game. But there was air conditioning built in, you could turn the cool up all the way and enjoy the game in comfort, never mind the heat.

Think about this a second...we had a fan die at the stadium the last game with the heat getting credit. And yet we still accommodate people who want to watch a football game in air conditioned comfort, and to hell with the environment, if they are willing to pay enough.
 

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,587
9,642
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
As if on cue...

Trump revokes waiver for California toset higher auto emissions standards

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday he was revoking California's authority to set its own vehicle emission standards, the latest move in the Trump administration's ongoing fight with the Golden State and attempts to chip away at former President Barack Obama's environmental legacy.

"The Trump Administration is revoking California's Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER," Trump tweeted.

The President made the announcement while visiting California for fundraisers. He was in his hotel in Los Angeles when he sent the tweets.

California's waiver under the Clean Air Act allowed it to set standards tighter than the federal standards, which have been adopted by more than a dozen states and became the de-facto nationwide standard, because automakers do not design different sets of vehicles to meet different standards in different states.
This is, of course, in addition to rolling back a bunch of other environmental regs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.