GivemTheAxe;842853229 said:

---

It has gone on long enough.
Reuters reported today that one of the largest glaciers icebergs on record of 5,800 sq km just broke off the Antarctic ice shelf.
Much as has been expected by virtually all of the scientific community.

---

Why are you such an extremist? There is a bipartisan consensus established on this thread that more study is required. You are really exposing yourself here as being outside the mainstream. Stop. Please, just stop.

mbBear;842853227 said:

---

Its science, there are no tactics. Scientists and meteorologists have their jobs no matter what.
Other people have jobs because there has been some good evolution in the way that we do things-people have responded. What's your biggest fear? That relying on alternative fuel sources all ends up being for no reason?
But to ask a question: based on the facts that you know, how would you handle Climate Change if you were say President? If you sat down right now with a meteorologist, what would you tell that that about Climate Change as you see it?

---

We must be good stewards of the planet, but mankind's impact on it varies from time to time and from one part to another.

CO2 turns out to be one of the smallest aspects of our impact. It's a very small part of the overall atmosphere and its negative effect must be weighed against its positive effect. It is increasing at such a slow rate that its overall effect is minor compared with other factors.

The US has made great strides in reducing our airborne pollution. Other major countries, especially China and India, are worse than we probably ever were. If you think that global air pollution should be reduced, start with them. Efforts to significantly reduce our air pollution further are reaching the point of diminishing returns. We'll spend a fortune to make inconsequential gains in the face of others where consequential gains can be made, but we're not paying for their cleanup.

We are not turning our sovereignty over to the UN, so there will be no treaty in which we allow them to tell us what to do while allowing other nations to do nothing. I know something about this, having researched and written an essay on UN intentions a few years ago. Here's the link, in case you doubt me:

https://freedomsfoundry.com/2013/04/05/danger-us-sovereignty-at-risk-june-3/

and this:

https://freedomsfoundry.com/2012/10/24/treaty-could-cede-taxing-power-to-un-2/

We're not going to cower over every scare tactic that comes down the pike. In the 1980's, these same "climate scientists" were wringing their hands over global cooling. That didn't work, so now they've turned it into global warming. Before that it was the hole in the ozone layer was getting too big. We know how that went.

As long as the CC proponents continue to insist that the science is settled, we know that they're pushing a falsehood. Science is never settled. Let them make their data and modeling open to the world and let other scientists replicate their process (after scrutinizing it to see if it's even defensible). In the meantime, let's continue to monitor climate change and see if we can tell the difference between man-made factors and the natural factors over which mankind has no control.

Rushinbear;842853234 said:

---

We must be good stewards of the planet, but mankind's impact on it varies from time to time and from one part to another.

CO2 turns out to be one of the smallest aspects of our impact. It's a very small part of the overall atmosphere and its negative effect must be weighed against its positive effect. It is increasing at such a slow rate that its overall effect is minor compared with other factors.

The US has made great strides in reducing our airborne pollution. Other major countries, especially China and India, are worse than we probably ever were. If you think that global air pollution should be reduced, start with them. Efforts to significantly reduce our air pollution further are reaching the point of diminishing returns. We'll spend a fortune to make inconsequential gains in the face of others where consequential gains can be made, but we're not paying for their cleanup.

We are not turning our sovereignty over to the UN, so there will be no treaty in which we allow them to tell us what to do while allowing other nations to do nothing. I know something about this, having researched and written an essay on UN intentions a few years ago. Here's the link, in case you doubt me:

https://freedomsfoundry.com/2013/04/05/danger-us-sovereignty-at-risk-june-3/

and this:

https://freedomsfoundry.com/2012/10/24/treaty-could-cede-taxing-power-to-un-2/

We're not going to cower over every scare tactic that comes down the pike. In the 1980's, these same "climate scientists" were wringing their hands over global cooling. That didn't work, so now they've turned it into global warming. Before that it was the hole in the ozone layer was getting too big. We know how that went.

As long as the CC proponents continue to insist that the science is settled, we know that they're pushing a falsehood. Science is never settled. Let them make their data and modeling open to the world and let other scientists replicate their process (after scrutinizing it to see if it's even defensible). In the meantime, let's continue to monitor climate change and see if we can tell the difference between man-made factors and the natural factors over which mankind has no control.

---

What is a Climate Change proponent? They are telling you science as it exists. "Science is never settled." Right, you sing "Defying Gravity" around the house, and you aren't a big believer in the advancements of cancer research. "Science is never settled"-let's market a t-shirt with that on it.
Fine, its all going to be okay, I gotcha now.
You are looking for a political angle when there isn't one.
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/americans-climate-change-scientific-consensus

You asked. I didn't expect that you would agree or even recognize my argument. But, it was a legitimate question. You didn't expect that it would be that easy to get me to come across with an answer. I didn't mind. You're free to say what you like.

Rushinbear;842852253 said:

---

Ahem. A Duke study of 1,000 years of observed climate data and not climate models concluded temperature variance due to "natural variability" and that temperature shifts are because of "ocean-atmosphere interaction and other natural factors."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-duke-warming-temperature/2015/04/24/id/640540/

---

This oughta be rich!

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insights-on-the-physical-nature-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-deduced-from-an-empirical-planetary-temperature-model.php?aid=88574

My favorite position about climate change from Gary Johnson, the Libertarian presidential candidate: we need to "take the long-term view that in billions of years the sun will grow to encompass the earth so ignoring climate change now makes sense." (he also suggested that rather than try to lower carbon emissions, we should concentrate on colonizing other planets)

UrsaMajor;842853352 said:

---

My favorite position about climate change from Gary Johnson, the Libertarian presidential candidate: we need to "take the long-term view that in billions of years the sun will grow to encompass the earth so ignoring climate change now makes sense." (he also suggested that rather than try to lower carbon emissions, we should concentrate on colonizing other planets)

---

I don't agree with him on much of anything and this would be one of them.

Rushinbear;842853343 said:

---

This oughta be rich!

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insights-on-the-physical-nature-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-deduced-from-an-empirical-planetary-temperature-model.php?aid=88574

---

I'm sure that you know that the publisher of that journal is facing deception charges brought by the FTC, and also that its Editor-in-Chief is a Heartland Institute "expert".

These are rather key details to omit from your consideration. The Heartland Institute, of course, is not exactly an impartial arbiter of the science of climate change.

But let's even give this paper the benefit of all doubt in that respect. My only comment is that I will continue to believe direct measurements of radiation over an "empirical model of planetary temperature" any day, as would any credible scientist.

dajo9;842853230 said:

---

Why are you such an extremist? There is a bipartisan consensus established on this thread that more study is required. You are really exposing yourself here as being outside the mainstream. Stop. Please, just stop.

---

I'm not sure why you're fixated on this. I say that the action recommended by science--vast reduction in carbon emissions--to combat climate change should be implemented while research into climate change should continue. You already pointed out how the deniers might try to conflate this with a position that suits their needs, like "we should not take any action while research continues." Everyone here can see the absurdity of it. Why are you continuing to play this message like a broken record? Is there some particular response you're trying to elicit?

TummyoftheGB;842853381 said:

---

The Heartland Institute, of course, is not exactly an impartial arbiter of the science of climate change.

---

Yay, these guys again. Thanks for giving me another opportunity to remind people that the Heartland Institute (including it's current CEO) used to tell people that smoking was health neutral.

Unit2Sucks;842853390 said:

---

Yay, these guys again. Thanks for giving me another opportunity to remind people that the Heartland Institute (including it's current CEO) used to tell people that smoking was health neutral.

---

Smoking what? Lol

going4roses;842853399 said:

---

Smoking what? Lol

---

Hey we should be open to a debate right? Smoking cancer skeptics are still waiting for the smoking cancer proponents to provide a comprehensive and accurate model which will predict when a smoker will die of cancer. As long as the checks clear, Heartland will shill for anyone.

Obviously some snark here but the principles are true and Heartland has shilled for big tobacco and a number of other industries. They don't worry about the truth.

Unit2Sucks;842853390 said:

---

Yay, these guys again. Thanks for giving me another opportunity to remind people that the Heartland Institute (including it's current CEO) used to tell people that smoking was health neutral.

---

And to bring this full circle, the Heartland Institute is a contributor to that font of information whatsupwiththat.com. You know the site run by a local weatherman who has no degree in climate sciences that some of our friends on this thread are so fond of citing. Heartland in turn receives money from the Koch brothers. To those who say "follow the money" I say FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!!

Sebastabear;842853409 said:

---

And to bring this full circle, the Heartland Institute is a contributor to that font of information whatsupwiththat.com. You know the site run by a local weatherman who has no degree in climate sciences that some of our friends on this thread are so fond of citing. Heartland in turn receives money from the Koch brothers. To those who say "follow the money" I say FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!!

---

Yes. Also the "science journal" OMICS that the article Rushinbear linked is closely linked the Heartland Institute and has been criticized for its practices that violate principles of ethics and scientific rigor that legit journals are supposed to adhere to.

Unit2Sucks;842853406 said:

---

Hey we should be open to a debate right? Smoking cancer skeptics are still waiting for the smoking cancer proponents to provide a comprehensive and accurate model which will predict when a smoker will die of cancer. As long as the checks clear, Heartland will shill for anyone.

Obviously some snark here but the principles are true and Heartland has shilled for big tobacco and a number of other industries. They don't worry about the truth.

---

I wanted to contribute a Lil something to the thread lol

TummyoftheGB;842853381 said:

---

I'm sure that you know that the publisher of that journal is facing deception charges brought by the FTC, and also that its Editor-in-Chief is a Heartland Institute "expert".

These are rather key details to omit from your consideration. The Heartland Institute, of course, is not exactly an impartial arbiter of the science of climate change.

But let's even give this paper the benefit of all doubt in that respect. My only comment is that I will continue to believe direct measurements of radiation over an "empirical model of planetary temperature" any day, as would any credible scientist.

---

I thought my transmittal letter would lay bear my intention.

It is, of course, utterly preposterous on its face, except... If there's anything to it, the truth will come out in the end.

Cave Bear;842853386 said:

---

I'm not sure why you're fixated on this. I say that the action recommended by science--vast reduction in carbon emissions--to combat climate change should be implemented while research into climate change should continue. You already pointed out how the deniers might try to conflate this with a position that suits their needs, like "we should not take any action while research continues." Everyone here can see the absurdity of it. Why are you continuing to play this message like a broken record? Is there some particular response you're trying to elicit?

---

Because it may be absurd, but nationally, that is the where we are at in terms of the climate change discussion. There are two points here -
1- How conservatives win by throwing up garbage until somebody on the other side says something across the aisle and - game over
2 - This explains why our politics are absurd. There is no repercussion for dishonesty or extremism. The same liars just keep posting lies over and over again until they get a different result, like, "yes we need more study" - game over. This thread is just a microcosm of the national debate and with your post we reached the same place. The absurdity is not on your part, of course.

Cave Bear;842853386 said:

---

I'm not sure why you're fixated on this. I say that the action recommended by science--vast reduction in carbon emissions--to combat climate change should be implemented while research into climate change should continue. You already pointed out how the deniers might try to conflate this with a position that suits their needs, like "we should not take any action while research continues." Everyone here can see the absurdity of it. Why are you continuing to play this message like a broken record? Is there some particular response you're trying to elicit?

---

Thank you CaveBear.
When I was in ROTC and later as an officer on Active Duty, I learned that many times in life a person will be faced with important decisions must be made.
You must make those decisions weighing all the information available to you.
You will never have 100% of the information you would like and you will never have 100% certainty.
If other people will be affected by your decision, someone will almost certainly criticize your decision.
But if it is an important decision, it must be made.
Depending upon the level of uncertainty and the level of risk, your decision does not have to be an "all in" decision. it can provide for stages.
But a decision must be made.
if you later conclude that the decision was wrong in whole or in part, you must own up to it and correct it.
In making that decision it is recommended that you have a Plan B.

But you if the decision is important you must come to a decision.
No decision -- is a decision not to act.

At present there is a lot of information that support the position of the so-called "alarmists". The so-called "deniers" claim that they have information that supports their position. There are those people who are not convinced by either the "alarmists" or the "deniers". Throughout the world, the large majority of scientists lean toward the "alarmist" position.

If the position of the "alarmists" is correct, then we are reaching the tipping point on global climate change. And a decision has to be made whether to take action to combat Global Climate Change.

Under the circumstances we can not simply say "we should not take any action while research continues."

A decision to wait means that we have decided that the alarmists position is clearly wrong and we will do nothing.

The decision does not mean that we must go "all in" in battling GCC. We can start with the Carbon Tax. we can join in the Paris Accord (which allows each country to make its own decision how much it will "buy in").

In the ROTC we studied military history and the errors of generals who decided to ignore clear warning signs and continued to march on into danger without taking adequate precautions. Be it the Romans against Hannibal. Or the Turks in their siege of Vienna. Or George Armstrong Custer at the Little Big Horn.
For them it did not end well.

GivemTheAxe;842853501 said:

---

Under the circumstances we can not simply say "we should not take any action while research continues."

A decision to wait means that we have decided that the alarmists position is clearly wrong and we will do nothing.

---

You say "we can not" but that is the decision this country has made. Thanks, in no small part, to propagandists like Cal88 who has won.

dajo9;842853506 said:

---

You say "we can not" but that is the decision this country has made. Thanks, in no small part, to propagandists like Cal88 who has won.

---

We have taken action my entire adult life. The debate is if we are doing enough.

Exactly. With 100% certainty, there are no decisions, merely actions (without oxygen, there is 100% certainty that you will die; hence, you breathe without deciding to do so).

The other point that needs to be factored in is the so-called Type 1 and Type 2 error distinction. Even if the scales tipped slightly toward no climate change (which they don't). The prudent course would be to take action to head it off for the simple reason that the consequences of climate change are potentially catastrophic, whereas the consequences of acting when there is no real danger may be somewhat problematic economically, but won't lead to widespread famine or inundating of coastal cities.

Psychologically, what the deniers have going for them is the tendency of people to not want to make changes if at all possible. The status quo appears safer--even when it is't (think: boiling frogs), and action with an unknown outcome feels risky--even when it is the safer course (think: Jews who refused to leave Germany before the Holocaust).

UrsaMajor;842853569 said:

---

Exactly. With 100% certainty, there are no decisions, merely actions (without oxygen, there is 100% certainty that you will die; hence, you breathe without deciding to do so).

The other point that needs to be factored in is the so-called Type 1 and Type 2 error distinction. Even if the scales tipped slightly toward no climate change (which they don't). The prudent course would be to take action to head it off for the simple reason that the consequences of climate change are potentially catastrophic, whereas the consequences of acting when there is no real danger may be somewhat problematic economically, but won't lead to widespread famine or inundating of coastal cities.

Psychologically, what the deniers have going for them is the tendency of people to not want to make changes if at all possible. The status quo appears safer--even when it is't (think: boiling frogs), and action with an unknown outcome feels risky--even when it is the safer course (think: Jews who refused to leave Germany before the Holocaust).

---

I have pretty much stayed out of the conversation of late as it has not/does not address my concern and I am not sure if I would be lumped in with deniers by you as I just don't see any reason that the US puts large carbon taxes on itself while coal goes on through roughly 2030 in India and China. To me it seems like little more than an income redistribution which I am emphatically against.

So I suggest GW is for real. We have been taking major, major steps in this country to turn back actions that contribute to same and need to continue in that vain. Carbon tax, no.

GivemTheAxe;842853501 said:

---

The decision does not mean that we must go "all in" in battling GCC. We can start with the Carbon Tax. we can join in the Paris Accord (which allows each country to make its own decision how much it will "buy in").

.

---

While I agree with almost everything you wrote, the part I quoted makes very little sense to me. Doing less than what the "alarmist" is saying is required, especially significantly less than what they are saying is required, also seems like a decision not to act either. We are all doing something now about GW, but the issue is a question of degrees. Why is a crap agreement like the Paris Accord ok with you if you believe the science? Why not do what the science tells us is required instead of just a feel-good measure that does nothing other than delude us into thinking we are making a difference with the agreement? At least the deniers who really believe their position can at least stand on their beliefs, as wrong as I believe they are. People who say they believe but still are fine with a non-action like the Paris Accord or living their lives with a carbon footprint like they really don't believe really **** me off. No different than people who preach the dangers of second hand smoke and yet still smoke in front of me or my kids.

The Republicans control the House, Senate,and Presidency. I'm sure we'll be hearing soon about their detailed plans for dealing with climate change.

calbear93;842853639 said:

---

No different than people who preach the dangers of second hand smoke and yet still smoke in front of me or my kids.

---

Does this happen to you frequently? I rarely am exposed to smokers these days so it's a genuine question.

GB54;842853683 said:

---

The Republicans control the House, Senate,and Presidency. I'm sure we'll be hearing soon about their detailed plans for dealing with climate change.

---

You are kidding right? So far the House, Senate have effectively done nothing. At least there have been many executive changes made while the media is playing in the bushes(or should I say being trumped). The whole landscape will shift left again, whether you want it to or not, if Ryan and McConnell remain impotent.

OdontoBear66;842853637 said:

---

I have pretty much stayed out of the conversation of late as it has not/does not address my concern and I am not sure if I would be lumped in with deniers by you as I just don't see any reason that the US puts large carbon taxes on itself while coal goes on through roughly 2030 in India and China. To me it seems like little more than an income redistribution which I am emphatically against.

So I suggest GW is for real. We have been taking major, major steps in this country to turn back actions that contribute to same and need to continue in that vain. Carbon tax, no.

---

Do you believe carbon emissions are part of the cost of doing business?

OdontoBear66;842853696 said:

---

You are kidding right? So far the House, Senate have effectively done nothing. At least there have been many executive changes made while the media is playing in the bushes(or should I say being trumped). The whole landscape will shift left again, whether you want it to or not, if Ryan and McConnell remain impotent.

---

Of course he's kidding. That's the point -- now that they are in power, Republicans have nothing.

drizzlybears brother;842853711 said:

---

Do you believe carbon emissions are part of the cost of doing business?

---

Not questioning that. If you have been with this thread, my comments have been toward an uneven deal when you have "one earth", not a US, a China, an India. Coal emissions are coal emissions--one atmosphere.

sycasey;842853725 said:

---

Of course he's kidding. That's the point -- now that they are in power, Republicans have nothing.

---

Sadly, Sy, you are correct, at least insofar as domestic matters go. They are right on defense, as recent history shows.

The cleanup of the air, water and land have come from Dem/Lib solutions. It has been expensive, but has achieved great strides. If those same operatives want to clean up the rest of the world, let them emigrate to India and China and apply the same pressure there. Future gains here at home, while possible, will come at increasing costs per unit of gain at the same time that any gains will have increasingly lower impact on our way of life.

The same can be said for health insurance, I'm ashamed to say. Hillarycare served notice to the Repubs that we needed something. They interpreted it as an attempt at socialized medicine (which it was, but that wasn't the point). Not enough of our people were getting sustainable health care under the old system, but the Repubs didn't get it. Then, after Obamacare was jammed through (we're seeing what a fool's errand that is), they still couldn't see that little had improved. The RNC should have hired a health care planning team in 2009 to draft a new approach. Did they listen? Now, the time has been squandered and they're still bickering.

The only saving grace will be that whatever comes out of this legislation will be the starting point to eliminate Obamacare (this will take longer than assumed because it has tentacles designed to spread throughout not only our health care system, but our entire way of life and they won't be easily rooted out) and start on a path consistent with our national values. The Dems took 50 years of incremental change to get us to where we are and it will take another 50 years to undo it and substitute a fair way.

But, it will take a skill and will that I don't know if the current Repubs can muster.

calbear93;842853639 said:

---

While I agree with almost everything you wrote, the part I quoted makes very little sense to me. Doing less than what the "alarmist" is saying is required, especially significantly less than what they are saying is required, also seems like a decision not to act either. We are all doing something now about GW, but the issue is a question of degrees. Why is a crap agreement like the Paris Accord ok with you if you believe the science? Why not do what the science tells us is required instead of just a feel-good measure that does nothing other than delude us into thinking we are making a difference with the agreement? At least the deniers who really believe their position can at least stand on their beliefs, as wrong as I believe they are. People who say they believe but still are fine with a non-action like the Paris Accord or living their lives with a carbon footprint like they really don't believe really **** me off. No different than people who preach the dangers of second hand smoke and yet still smoke in front of me or my kids.

---

You mistake my intent. I mentioned a carbon tax and signing on to the Paris Accord as a starting point.
It is the first step. Doing so would be the equivalent of acknowledging that there is a problem we must face. Like an Alcoholic admitting he has a problem. Nothing can be accomplished without that first step.
Signing on to the Paris Accord does not limit what we chose to do if we should decide to do more that the minimum.

I have serious concerns what the world will be like in 2050 if we continue to ignore the problem. I will be dead (hopefully after Cal gets back to the Rose Bowl) but my kids will be in their 60's-70's and my grandchildren will be in their 30's.

BTW so many critics try to argue that the Accord and battling climate change is a monetary sink hole. But there is a lot of money that can be made by going Green. The countries that take the lead will be the leaders of the world economy in 2050.

What's the carbon footprint of posting on BearInsider?

GivemTheAxe;842853761 said:

---

You mistake my intent. I mentioned a carbon tax and signing on to the Paris Accord as a starting point.
It is the first step. Doing so would be the equivalent of acknowledging that there is a problem we must face. Like an Alcoholic admitting he has a problem. Nothing can be accomplished without that first step.
Signing on to the Paris Accord does not limit what we chose to do if we should decide to do more that the minimum.

I have serious concerns what the world will be like in 2050 if we continue to ignore the problem. I will be dead (hopefully after Cal gets back to the Rose Bowl) but my kids will be in their 60's-70's and my grandchildren will be in their 30's.

BTW so many critics try to argue that the Accord and battling climate change is a monetary sink hole. But there is a lot of money that can be made by going Green. The countries that take the lead will be the leaders of the world economy in 2050.

---

So, could you explain to me in simple terms why, as stipulated in the Paris Accord, the carbon tax on the US is so important. And in terms where you understand I am asking from a standpoint of questioning why necessary. All I have heard is "We should do it" but no real rational as to why. I am open to absorbing, but just saying we must do it to help underdeveloped countries just doesn't do it for me. I keep suggesting that the US has been doing a very credible job of improving its carbon imprint, and it is continuing. Somehow the carbon tax gets added on, and I just do not understand why. And then to make it stick in my craw even more we let China and India continue with coal while our coal has nicely been dropped like a lead balloon, which in itself helps our footprint immensely.

Unit2Sucks;842853684 said:

---

Does this happen to you frequently? I rarely am exposed to smokers these days so it's a genuine question.

---

Wow where do you reside ???

Even if it's the car next to/in front me its a daily thing. For me

I don't even know who can afford them $$ or health wise

drizzlybears brother;842853711 said:

---

Do you believe carbon emissions are part of the cost of doing business?

---

Carbon emissions are the cost of living.