EPA categorically rejects claims that climate science and MMCC are bunk

[sandorski]

I quoted your post. It said "mitigate climate change" not "mitigate THE climate change". In other words, you are the fool, don't try and blame me because your writing skills fail your nutty global warming religion beliefs.



The fact is NOBODY KNOWS yet what the real impacts of the "climate change" will be. All they have are models that have proven pathetically inaccurate. In other words, there is NO SCIENTIFIC backing for taking radical action because the reality is you don't even know if the change - if any - will be good or bad. Go say two more "Hail Gore's" at the MMGW altar and your sins will be forgiven though.

True, but all the more reason not to take the Chance.

 

[sandorski]

Actually, the health analogy does work pretty well in this case, it illustrates the folly of the MMGW religion and it's followers.

"Butter is bad! It clogs up arteries, we need to take immediate action. Get rid of all butter and use margarine instead. ". 20 years later: "scientists have figured out that margarine may actually be worse for you than butter".... Oops. Taking actions without fully understanding what you're actually doing and what the impact will be is sets you up to fail.

uhhh, no

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Shira, does your solution involve more taxes?

 

[shira]

Shira, does your solution involve more taxes?

My "solution"???? Where have I mentioned a solution in this thread? I'm merely hammering home the undeniable: The ever-more-apparent truth of MMCC.

Every week yet another major study piles on more evidence supporting MMCC. Yet every week, the naysayers offer nothing.

But I certainly understand where YOU are coming from:

You're opposed in principle to "big government" solutions to major problems. But you have no non-big-government solutions to MMCC. MMCC is major problem that your simplified little ideological world can't handle. What to do, what to do, what to do?

Since you can't win any arguments on the merits - either on the theory of MMCC or its solutions - all you can do is lie: Insist that it's all a conspiracy. Insist that "big money" is fueling all of the pro-MMCC science (when in fact the big money is doing its best to oppose the science). Deny, deny, deny.

Much of this is done on a subconscious level: Your need for ideological consistency is so great, and your self-awareness is so small, that you delude yourself into unquestioningly believing all the lies.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

My "solution"???? Where have I mentioned a solution in this thread? I'm merely hammering home the undeniable: The ever-more-apparent truth of MMCC.

Every week yet another major study piles on more evidence supporting MMCC. Yet every week, the naysayers offer nothing.

But I certainly understand where YOU are coming from:

You're opposed in principle to "big government" solutions to major problems. But you have no non-big-government solutions to MMCC. MMCC is major problem that your simplified little ideological world can't handle. What to do, what to do, what to do?

Since you can't win any arguments on the merits - either on the theory of MMCC or its solutions - all you can do is lie: Insist that it's all a conspiracy. Insist that "big money" is fueling all of the pro-MMCC science (when in fact the big money is doing its best to oppose the science). Deny, deny, deny.

Much of this is done on a subconscious level: Your need for ideological consistency is so great, and your self-awareness is so small, that you delude yourself into unquestioningly believing all the lies.

if we imagine for a minute that all this is true....I have yet to see ANY viable solutions proposed so what is the point either way?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

if we imagine for a minute that all this is true....I have yet to see ANY viable solutions proposed so what is the point either way?

Carbon credits...silly.

 

[bfdd]

Shira, it's continual posts like these that annoy the hell out of people.

Look, I know that if you put 40 humans in a small room together the room starts heating up. People affect their immediate environment around them if there is no self sustaining cycle to prevent that. If there was no plants on this planet, the atmosphere would be a unbreathable due to too much carbon dioxide in the air at the very least. If there were only plants, then the air would be unbreathable again eventually and corrosive due to too much oxygen eventually. That's all fine and dandy.

What people are trying to state is that the numbers so far do not show even remotely that humans are responsible for global warming. Don't get me wrong, pollution is a problem. But it affects acute areas. Besides, 100 years worth of data, even if it was all correct, is not enough to suggest any sort of global climate change in a planet with a history of 6 to 9 billion years! It is an insignificant blip of time. Maybe a thousand years worth of actual good data collection might start pointing to better trends, but for now, it does not.

I have no problem with data collection, and scientists doing pure research into the field. I wholeheartedly support that endeavor. I also support that people stop pollution as much as possible. However, I do not support the fear mongering that I currently see of using relatively limited data, some of which has proven to be bad, as a baseline to determining politics.

I've always considered it silly that they are using at most 150 years of recorded temps to say this is something we're causing when there's billions of years of climate history on this planet that says this shit just changes and there's really nothing anyone or thing can do about it. 150 years to the life of the planet is the blink of an eye. If you live to 80 you've lived less seconds than the planet has lived years. Really puts this shit into perspective when you view it like that.

 

[OutHouse]

Let's see: You've cited FIVE papers, versus THOUSANDS that support MMCC.

If the score of a basketball game were 4000 to 5, would you think the side with 5 was winning or even competing?

follow the herd man just follow the herd. the herd is always right, just follow the herd.

 

[OutHouse]

uhhh, no

fail

 

[OutHouse]

All I see is a Tard.

fail again

 

[OutHouse]

True, but all the more reason not to take the Chance.

uber fail!

 

[shira]

if we imagine for a minute that all this is true....I have yet to see ANY viable solutions proposed so what is the point either way?

When there's broad acceptance by the public that there really is a problem and that the cost of doing nothing is huge, viable solutions will come.

 

[dainthomas]

Foxes categorically reject claims that foxes eat chickens.

 

[cubby1223]

When there's broad acceptance by the public that there really is a problem and that the cost of doing nothing is huge, viable solutions will come.

You know, instead of posting pointless posts on a meaningless internet forum, you could be out in the field right now developing your viable solutions.

But instead you have taken the approach that only government direction can help you.

 

[monovillage]

Here's an excellent post by noted Climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry at Collide-a-scape.
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/03/the-curry-agonistes/

"JC: My hypothesis is that the level of vitriol in the climate blogs reflects the last gasp of those who thought they could influence national and international energy policy through the power politics of climate science expertise. The politics of expertise is about how scientific information is used in the policy making process, including how diverging viewpoints are interpreted and how science is weighed relative to values and politics in the policy debate. The problem comes in when the “power” politics of expertise are played. Signals of the “power” play include: hiding uncertainties and never admitting a mistake; developing a consensus with a high level of confidence; demanding that the consensus receive extreme deference relative to other view points; insisting that that science demands a particular policy; discrediting scientists holding other view points by dismissing them as cranks, trivializing their credentials and say that they are not qualified to hold an opinion; and attacking the motives of anyone that challenges the consensus. Sound familiar? In the case of climate change, the authoritarianism of “science tells us we should . . . ” could not withstand the public perception of scientists engaging with pressure groups, lack of transparency that meant people were unable to evaluate the information themselves, and then the climategate affair that raised questions about the integrity of the scientists."

Sound familiar?

 

[shira]

I've always considered it silly that they are using at most 150 years of recorded temps to say this is something we're causing when there's billions of years of climate history on this planet that says this shit just changes and there's really nothing anyone or thing can do about it. 150 years to the life of the planet is the blink of an eye. If you live to 80 you've lived less seconds than the planet has lived years. Really puts this shit into perspective when you view it like that.

So you think that mankind's actions can't possibly lead to huge effects over what amounts to a geological blink of the eye? Well, consider rainforests. Prior to the Industrial revolution, approximately 6 million square miles of tropical rainforest existed worldwide. Now, entirely due to the actions of mankind (logging, slash-and burn farming, cattle ranching, and land clearance for agribusiness) there are only 2.6 million square miles of rainforest left.

In only 150 years, mankind has destroyed almost 60% loss of a resource that had existed for at least 55 MILLION years.

Now, tell us again how mankind's actions since the industrial revolution can't possibly be the cause of the observed climate changes.

 

[bfdd]

Shira, I do think mankinds action can lead to huge effects, but using rain forests is a terrible fucking example. http://www.cfact.org/a/141/The-rainforest-issue-Myths-and-facts

Lets also not skip over the fact you're trying to compare a LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT with a GLOBAL one. Your post is goddamn retarded and I never stated we as humans haven't caused local environmental damage. I'm saying our CO2 output is not the main reason or even an important one to climate change.

ps - the world of 55 million years ago looks nothing like today, that includes rain forests.

 

[shira]

Shira, I do think mankinds action can lead to huge effects, but using rain forests is a terrible fucking example. http://www.cfact.org/a/141/The-rainforest-issue-Myths-and-facts

Lets also not skip over the fact you're trying to compare a LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT with a GLOBAL one. Your post is goddamn retarded and I never stated we as humans haven't caused local environmental damage. I'm saying our CO2 output is not the main reason or even an important one to climate change.

ps - the world of 55 million years ago looks nothing like today, that includes rain forests.

You're confused. As has been pointed out many times in these threads and elsewhere, the DIFFERENTIAL effect on climate of mankind's action is the concern. Mankind's contribution to temperature variability rides on top of the natural variability. No one is claiming that 98% of the observed global temperature is due to mankind; what the scientific consensus IS saying is that the observed global temperatures are about 1 degree Celsius higher than they would otherwise be, absent the actions of mankind.

So you can protest that temperature has been varying across the eons all you want; but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that - whatever the "natural" variation is - mankind has added another 1 degree on top of that natural variation. And it's that 1 degree - growing by another 1 to 6.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century - that's the concern.

 

[monovillage]

"In only 150 years, mankind has destroyed almost 60% loss of a resource that had existed for at least 55 MILLION years."

Come on shira, i guess you're forgetting about the Quaternary ice ages. Try to be accurate.

 

[Double Trouble]

When there's broad acceptance by the public that there really is a problem and that the cost of doing nothing is huge, viable solutions will come.

Except the slight little problem that nobody actually knows the cost of doing nothing.

In summary, we have this:

1) man is polluting the environment on a vast scale. It is likely this is impacting the environment, and is likely to continue doing so.
2) Reducing pollution, including greenhouse gasses and such, would be good, but nobody has a real workable framework yet to achieve such a thing. All we have is vague notions and efforts to increase taxation and the scope of government.
3) Governments in places like China, India, Russia etc are not going to be on board with whatever framework is set up if it negatively impacts their economy, so a large percentage of pollution will remain unaffected no matter what we do.
4) We don't know the actual impact or costs of doing nothing. We have models that have been proven over and over again to be woefully inadequate, and some vague predictions.
5) we don't know the cost / impact of some of the proposed "solutions", either from an economic perspective or from an environmental / climate perspective. We don't know what they will really cost, and we don't know if they'll do any good (or even do harm).
6) This whole issue has effectively been driven out of the realm of science into the realm of politics, making it even more unlikely that we're going to get real (scientific) answers to a lot of the questions.

Given this scenario, it makes absolutely no sense to take any large scale steps until a lot more information is available.

 

[sandorski]

Except the slight little problem that nobody actually knows the cost of doing nothing.

In summary, we have this:

1) man is polluting the environment on a vast scale. It is likely this is impacting the environment, and is likely to continue doing so.
2) Reducing pollution, including greenhouse gasses and such, would be good, but nobody has a real workable framework yet to achieve such a thing. All we have is vague notions and efforts to increase taxation and the scope of government.
3) Governments in places like China, India, Russia etc are not going to be on board with whatever framework is set up if it negatively impacts their economy, so a large percentage of pollution will remain unaffected no matter what we do.
4) We don't know the actual impact or costs of doing nothing. We have models that have been proven over and over again to be woefully inadequate, and some vague predictions.
5) we don't know the cost / impact of some of the proposed "solutions", either from an economic perspective or from an environmental / climate perspective. We don't know what they will really cost, and we don't know if they'll do any good (or even do harm).
6) This whole issue has effectively been driven out of the realm of science into the realm of politics, making it even more unlikely that we're going to get real (scientific) answers to a lot of the questions.

Given this scenario, it makes absolutely no sense to take any large scale steps until a lot more information is available.

Fail

 

[Double Trouble]

Fail

Very insightful. Speaking of fail, thank you for saving us the trouble and going ahead and rating your own posts with a single word. :thumbsup:

 

[werepossum]

Basically Sandorski, he was saying how you/your kids are going to wake up indentured servants one day because of these types of lies and manipulation. You and Shira and some of the others seem to be ok with it, while for the rest of us - the silent majority, the b.s. falls on deaf ears.

Exactly. The solution being pushed for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is exactly the same as that pushed for catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling - increased government control over every facet of our lives and a greatly reduced standard of living for most of us without any effect on the lives of the ultra wealthy and powerful. This is not a coincidence. At the same time roughly half of us are now dependent on government for some portion of our livelihood. Anyone familiar with history should be able to recognize the inevitable result of demanding that a more powerful entity protect and provide for you. You cannot be provided for as if you are chattel without becoming chattel. If nothing else, Kelo v. New London should have made that abundantly clear. Unfortunately a near-majority of Americans find government bennies preferable to freedom, with all the opportunities and terrors of a free creature.

 

[sandorski]

Exactly. The solution being pushed for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is exactly the same as that pushed for catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling - increased government control over every facet of our lives and a greatly reduced standard of living for most of us without any effect on the lives of the ultra wealthy and powerful. This is not a coincidence. At the same time roughly half of us are now dependent on government for some portion of our livelihood. Anyone familiar with history should be able to recognize the inevitable result of demanding that a more powerful entity protect and provide for you. You cannot be provided for as if you are chattel without becoming chattel. If nothing else, Kelo v. New London should have made that abundantly clear. Unfortunately a near-majority of Americans find government bennies preferable to freedom, with all the opportunities and terrors of a free creature.

Take your Meds.