The Climate Change Debate Is Over, And Environmentalists Lost

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by mocgator, May 16, 2014.

  1. mocgator
    Offline

    mocgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,416
    Likes Received:
    299
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The ATL
    Ratings Received:
    +613
    It wasn't even close..

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/05/07/the-climate-change-debate-is-over-and-environmentalists-lost/

    Have you noticed that we’re always at the cusp of a cataclysm, yet the deadline to act always moves to a politically convenient not-too-distant future? I guess when the time to act runs out – it will at some point, right? — we can begin thinking about defunding all these panels and reinvesting in something more productive: like figuring out how we can adapt to the future.

    But really, after all these years, admitting that executive power is the only way to move (tepidly) forward on environmentalist policy is basically admitting defeat. Has there ever been a movement that’s spent as much time, energy and treasure and gotten so little in return? I suspect there are three reasons for this failure: 1. It’s difficult to fight basic economics. 2. On energy, Americans, despite what they say, have no desire to try (nor should they.) 3. It’s getting more difficult, not less, to believe environmental doom and gloom.

    A recent Pew Research Center poll found that 40 percent of Americans believe that climate change is a major threat. A Gallup poll survey found that around a third of Americans personally worry about climate change. But when they’re not asked specifically about global warming, voters never bring the topic up. Their most important concerns are the economy, jobs and debt. There is always strong support for the abstract idea of environmental regulation and “clean energy,” but when it comes some concrete policy it is nearly always unpopular. Few people want to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline. Few people support new emissions regulations. And I doubt another scaremongery study will change that reality.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  2. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,051
    Likes Received:
    2,513
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,552
    Yep, with all this hysteria about greenhouse gasses like CO2 being the boogie-man... everyone in the scientific community forgot all about the plants and photosynthesis in their 'prognostications' (they have nothing close to scientific proof) about Global Warming.
    Last edited: May 16, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  3. jimgata
    Offline

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,876
    Likes Received:
    192
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,052
    There is one thing about the warmists. They THINK they are smarter than anyone else, but are willing to shut off anyone with a different opinion and facts that contradict everything they propose. Ain't too smart.
    They can't stand the truth. It's PC to be a warmist.
    With all the horror stories being told, unbounded media coverage, the American public still doesn't buy it.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +163
    The science says that Global Warming is a lie. Like Hope and Change, Climate Change is a hoax too.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. channingcrowderhungry
    Offline

    channingcrowderhungry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,913
    Likes Received:
    185
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bottom of a pint glass
    Ratings Received:
    +805
    Are you not yourself admitting to shutting off a different opinion and facts that contradict your own in this exact post?

    There are plenty of facts to support both sides in this debate.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,452
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +945
    Assuming that climate model predictions aren't facts, please present facts (observational data) that supports the hypothesis...
    • Like Like x 1
  7. channingcrowderhungry
    Offline

    channingcrowderhungry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,913
    Likes Received:
    185
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bottom of a pint glass
    Ratings Received:
    +805
    I just watched a Vice documentary recently on Greenland melting. Here's an article about it and rising sea levels. Even in the article not everyone agrees on the causation or what happens going forward

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-greenland-ice-melt-fuels-sea-level-rise-concerns-17187

    Personally, err on the side of caution when it comes to the way we treat the planet like a rental car. But that's just me.
  8. channingcrowderhungry
    Offline

    channingcrowderhungry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,913
    Likes Received:
    185
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bottom of a pint glass
    Ratings Received:
    +805
    If you want a quick watch of the Vice doc on Greenland here you go

    Vice: Greenland Is Melting:
  9. Cruzer84
    Offline

    Cruzer84 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    921
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +163
    [​IMG]

    Climate model predictions are not facts. They are temporally-unprovable predictions… from models.

    Meteorologist can't predict the weather next week, so you'll have to excuse me if a question climatologist predictions. Climate has so much more to do with things outside of human control. Yes, climate changes. No, your carbon footprint does much to move the needle.
    Is there a profession less measurable? How does a climatologist get a promotion?
    "Hey Bob nice job predicting the weather in 2114. We jumped in our time machine and checked it out. You were were dead on."
    Climatologists are academics who benefit from creating an issue where none exists. How much less funding would there be if they weren't sounding an alarm? In academia the way to survive peer review is to not rock the boat by varying from the party line.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Cruzer84
    Offline

    Cruzer84 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    921
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +163
    Dr. John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, who was on media call for the National Climate Assessment release, once predicted global warming could cause the deaths of 1 billion people by 2020 and that sea levels would rise by 13 feet by the end of the century (not to mention, he co-authored a book with Paul Ehrlich in which he explained that “population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution…”).

    WOW!
  11. RayGator
    Offline

    RayGator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,063
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Lakeland, Florida USA.
    Ratings Received:
    +1,919
    Until a few years ago I had subscribed to Time for a very long time and I do remember their articles on the coming ice age. Don't know how Al Gore would have handled that back then.
  12. cjgator76
    Offline

    cjgator76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    17,251
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +426
    It's really too bad that this issue became so politicized.

    I think that the warmists made a political mistake with the whole "science is settled" thing. "Case closed, STFU, don't question this" is rarely an effective approach with the public. At least not in this country.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,452
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +945
    Here's the link for current sea level trends from NOAA. You'll note that the current trend for most of the North American coast is marked with an arrow indicating 0 to 1ft per century trend. Rather than accelerating, the rate of sea level rise actually diminished a bit in recent years. There has been slow and steady sea level rise since the last ice age.

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

    Satellite data from University of Colorado is pretty steady as well. 3.2 mm per year since 1992....translates to about 1 ft per century.

    [​IMG]

    Regarding glaciers, they also have been in retreat since the last ice age. If you look at glaciers globally, some are shrinking and some are growing. For example, the Himalayas aren't quickly contracting as predicted in an alarming IPCC report:

    Top Indian physicists have concluded Himalayan glaciers show little sign of retreat – in one of the largest studies of its type ever carried out.

    I. M. Bahuguna et al, publishing in Current Science [PDF, issue index], studied changes to 2,000 glaciers in various Himalayan regions between 2001 to 2011. They conclude that 1,700 were stable, showing the same surface area and no change of direction.

    248 glaciers exhibited a retreat, and 18 an advance. The scientists estimate a net loss of glacier area of about 10,000 km2 – that's a 0.2 per cent decrease (+/- 2.5pc), and an average retreat of 2.1 metres annually...


    Glacier extent reached its peak 22,000 years ago. Glacier retreat accelerated with the end of the last ice age, some 11,000 to 12,000 years ago. They're expected to advance again when the current interglacial period comes to an end.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/0...are_not_melting_ipcc_alarmist_global_warming/

    I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment about treating the earth well. Enjoy the interglacial!!!
  14. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,935
    Likes Received:
    380
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,865
    That's the trouble with scientists. They think they know more about science than people who aren't scientists.
  15. channingcrowderhungry
    Offline

    channingcrowderhungry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,913
    Likes Received:
    185
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bottom of a pint glass
    Ratings Received:
    +805
    Appreciate the data. The first link is a little iffy, since the data is from 2006. The second is interesting for sure. But like I said, that's why I continue to not know what to think about the issue, because as soon as I can post data about Greenland glaciers accelerated retreating, you can point to data showing it's not happening in the Himalayas. There is just so much conflicting data out there on this, and then other stuff is shown to be made up, etc.
  16. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,452
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +945
    Their March 2012 notice about the data on the first link is a bit confusing:

    Since September 2008, recalculated trends with data up to the year 2006 have been displayed. CO-OPS has now adopted a new policy of recalculating sea level trends every year since 2006 for the stations still in operation and making updated trends available on Sea Levels Online.

    It's awkwardly worded, but I think it is up to date. The link is "Sea Levels Online". Nonetheless this site also references the Colorado graph that I posted. They support each other fairly well.

    Regarding glaciers, part of my point was that regional trends around the globe can vary quite a bit for temperature, precipitation and a number of other variables, glaciers being one. This past year Australia was warmer while the US was cooler. That's why you have to be careful about looking at just one area. Arctic sea ice is down from baseline, but global sea ice is near record levels.
  17. channingcrowderhungry
    Offline

    channingcrowderhungry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,913
    Likes Received:
    185
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bottom of a pint glass
    Ratings Received:
    +805
    I honestly appreciate the data. Do you have something that shows global sea ice is near record levels? All I ever see is both north pole and Antarctic ice at record lows. And most web sites paint it to be a dramatic issue, so it's hard to wade through
  18. Gatormb
    Offline

    Gatormb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,943
    Likes Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Bradenton, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +868
    Thanks for being open minded CC. Think $2.6 billion government dollars per year spent on global warming research. What would happen to your "manmade global warming" research job if you determined it didn't exist?
  19. richmondgator81
    Offline

    richmondgator81 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +351
    All this money being invested in reducing our carbon footprint should be re-directed in a war effort against the indigenous peoples of wherever.
  20. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    71,207
    Likes Received:
    4,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,665
    81- you make me smh

Share This Page