I had a thought about global warming the other day. At what point does the survival of the human species become more important than the democratic process? When is it ok to just say ....fuck it ..your voice doesn`t count in that matter?

Perhaps someday countries will go to war over the amount of co2 each other blasts into the atmosphere..

Imagine emerging economies being told not to burn fossil fuels for the sake of everyone.. little unfair but still necessary..right?

Now there is a man not concerned about global warming.

Your video, The Newsroom's Take On Global Warming-Fact Checked, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The quote of mine you used was among my recommendations for global warming alarmists to walk their talk. However, I, myself, am not a global warming alarmist (though I somehow manage to maintain a much smaller carbon footprint than most -- possibly ALL --- of those that I know).

And, wouldn't ya know it, that heat that those alarmists claimed to be "hiding" in the oceans were wrong about that, just as they're wrong about most of the claims they base on political convenience, rather than climate science.

Like most of Sorkin's bloviating, this empty rhetoric is undermined by the incongruency of the climate change alarmists' own ballooning carbon footprints while attempting to use the government to impose force upon others' behavior. Until global warming alarmists themselves walk their talk (i.e., drive hybrids -- if they drive at all -- cease flying in airplanes, eat strictly vegetarian diets, have few if any children, and withdraw their consent from the worst polluter on the planet: the state), then no amount of freaking out, ranting, incentives, or attempts at policy will serve to avert the "impending catastrophe."

In China and India (where pollution is no doubt a significant problem), there are hundreds of millions of people who have far bigger concerns and more pressing problems than some remote notion of a "warming planet" or some looming "catastrophic collapse of civilization." (In fact, the same can be said for the majority of the population of the planet.)

And this is to say nothing of how ALL of the models used to support "evidence" for the case of a warming planet have ALL (not some, but ALL) been consistently undermined by serious skeptical science (PDF) while the claims of the political entity of the IPCC remain inconsistent with the data.

Since when do politicians get to decide the veracity of scientific fact?

EDIT: ALL of the climate-change alarmists' predictions, dating back to the 1980s, have all failed to come true. When this trend continues for the next few decades, there will be no shortage of "Told You So" moments that will undoubtedly be explained away by some unknown variable -- like the heat that is "hiding" in the ocean -- that, once "corrected for," will serve to further prop up this political ruse.

@Taint, The skeptics don't "deny" that the climate changes. They are skeptical of the reasons why it changes, the claims of consistent warming, and the claims about the catastrophic effect of whatever is caused by human activity. Also, I don't think I need to go into the debunking of that 97% claim (science is not a function of votes or consensus, but of evidence). In any event, most of the "debate" about this topic is a waste of time considering the "believers" are mostly not climate scientists and that no one is actually doing very much about it in their own lives.

So, straw man opinions about so-called "deniers" is a pathetic attempt to substitute character "analysis" for actual scientific evidence of man-made global warming of catastrophic proportions. Evidence of which has yet to be provided.

So the real reason many people don't "believe" has to do with not being presented with actual evidence and instead being given false claims (97%) about "consensus" (which is irrelevant to science), and claims of "settled" science (also meaningless in real science), postulated mostly by writers, politicians, and activists with no scientific credentials.

No one really argues with the idea that the climate changes. But, rather, what caused the change, to what degree, and what the effects will be... Well, let's just say for now that all (not a few but all) climate models have been proven wrong.
So no, there are no climate change "deniers," but plenty of people, and many scientists, who don't believe certain claims about specific aspects, even when believers keep repeating the "consensus" canard.

I honestly don't think believers actually believe their own claims of impending greenhouse gas climate catastrophe. If they did, they would all drive hybrids and go vegetarian. Also, most "green" tech companies wouldn't fail (like most of them do). Why do the climate change believers drive their SUVs and fly to their holiday vacation without regard to the impending climate doom? They are polluting the air, are they not? By their own theories, they also warm up the climate.

Contrary to consensus claims, nearly every aspect of climate change is being debated by the scientific community. Can you name a specific aspect of it that is not under debate (without going into some general "climate change" "consensus" canard)? Such claims are too broad to mean anything of any relevance. What specific aspect? What about it?

@enoch
@newtboy
@Stormsinger
@speechless


31,487 American scientists say you and your belief in man made global warming via CO2 is Bullshit.

9,029 PhD;
7,157 MS;
2,586 MD and DVM; and
12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees.
Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

PS suck my dick.

https://news.vice.com/article/dangerous-levels-of-global-warming-are-unavoidable-says-the-world-bank

And thus are we stuck between a rock and a hard place. The politician wants you to believe that if we DO contribute to global warming (and we do) then it has to be to a degree that requires huge change and therefore huge amounts of cash. The monolithic oil/fuel companies want you to believe that we have no effect whatsoever, please continue burning as many fossils as you can find.

And the field of science (put simply, the desire of the most inquisitive amongst us to better understand the reality we find ourselves in) stuck in the middle quietly cataloging and recording exactly what is happening with the highest precision available, being completely fucking ignored.

But that is the way of Earth and i've made my peace with it. Suicide through capitalism, we are more interested in presentation than content, personal gain than collective gain, and afterall what is more presentable than the easy option? But i consider this a failing on the part of scientists to insist how important it is that we make our collective decisions based on our best understanding (i.e. science). I would like to correct that mistake, but i don't know how yet. I figure it will have to involve being able to present scientific ideas well, and VS has helped me hone that skill.

In other words thanks very much @enoch, i just wish he'd engage me. (I was less than polite because i know he ignores me - he doesn't want to learn, he wants to win.)

That's hilarious...invent? I guess they "invented" deep water and vertical currents too?

The climate models have not 'failed'. They are not designed to predict short term weather. They only predict long term global trends, and are pretty much right on by that measure (contrary to what Faux News seems to have told you). The models have always predicted colder winters and hotter summers, exactly what we're seeing.

You seem to think if the temperature goes down in winter, or one year is not hotter than the last, it's proof that 'global warming' is a myth/hoax. That's simply wrong. (I still have yet to hear a logical reasoning for anyone perpetrating such a 'hoax' though, scientists could clean up if any credentialed, peer reviewed climatologist could prove the hoax and sell that proof to industry, why has that not happened if it's about making money amorally?)

This 'invention'-deep water warming and IPO are not a new ideas, maybe it's just the first you've heard of them?

Hottest year on record except, of course, for all those places covered in snow. I wonder if the heat stopped hiding in the ocean: "It's virtually certain that California will have its warmest year on record, even if California has record cold in December." It's the warmest year even if it's simultaneously the coldest December (or winter) on record. That's what I call "useful" data. Maybe the heat only hides during certain months, and then comes out and then hides out again, like for the Holidays or something.

I gotta sympathize with the global warming folks who latch onto any data point they can use to promulgate the freakout... anything that justifies their existence (until they inevitably run out of improbable causes).

When your models continue to fail your agenda of global warming BS you invent deep water warming (IPO).

Whats the next excuse?

There are some excellent explanations of how and why the 'appearance' of a 'global warming hiatus' can give a false impression of reality, how the system works, and what data must be ignored to give that impression/appearance.
Unfortunately, if I understood correctly, we can expect ocean surface temperatures to rise quickly soon, now that the circulation is slower (IPO higher), because it will be heated from above and below.
*doublepromote

Yeah, this guy was debunked 3 years ago.

Put very simply, his expertise is not in climate science and he's wrong.

Most importantly, you'll note that his preferred method of communication about climate science is through an op-ed, not through a peer-reviewed paper.
But hey, any excuse to continue fucking up the planet, right?