John Oliver and Bill Nye Show Why Cable News Climate "Debates" Are So Ridiculous

[ultimatebob]

The funny thing about this is that I find myself agreeing with politicians like Marco Rubio who are saying that we can't really DO anything about climate change. Does it exist? Sure. Can we fix the problem by passing new emissions laws in the United States. Nope!

Even if we started planning to shut down coal and gas power plants NOW in the United States, it would likely take over a decade to complete the process. Meanwhile, China and other developing nations will keep increasing their CO2 emissions, canceling out what minimal progress the US makes. So, it's a zero sum gain.

Sorry gang, but we're basically screwed until someone finds a way to make renewable fuels more cost effective than fossil fuels.

 

[Oldgamer]

 

[BoberFett]

Man made climate change doesn't exist because it gets in the way of doing the business of making profits hand over fist.

Just think how accepted this idea of human induced climate change would be if big business decided that the only way to increase the rate of return on an investment was to buy into the idea.

I've got news for you, spanky. Any "solution" to climate change will not negatively affect the wealthy. I'll give you one guess as to who's lifestyle will be affected...

 

[Jaskalas]

You are not portraying this honestly. If we take things your way that means that a paper about how increased CO2 levels leads to a warmer atmosphere wouldn't count as a paper endorsing AGW. That's silliness.

Of course it leads to a warmer planet. The question is HOW MUCH?! At 0.3C per doubling, you'd need 3,200ppm CO2 to induce man-made warming of 1C.

Category 1 is reserved for those who think humans are the majority cause for observed warming in the instrument record. I do not, thus I am in Category 2. That is why this 97% consensus is a lie. The cook survey counts papers more "skeptical" than me as being among their consensus.

 

[michal1980]

I've got news for you, spanky. Any "solution" to climate change will not negatively affect the wealthy. I'll give you one guess as to who's lifestyle will be affected...

middle and lower class in america. Thats it.

Anyone that complains about free trade agreements should have an issue with USA being forced to reduce energy usage, or increase energy costs vs the rest of the world.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course it leads to a warmer planet. The question is HOW MUCH?! At 0.3C per doubling, you'd need 3,200ppm CO2 to induce man-made warming of 1C.

Category 1 is reserved for those who think humans are the majority cause for observed warming in the instrument record. I do not, thus I am in Category 2. That is why this 97% consensus is a lie. The cook survey counts papers more "skeptical" than me as being among their consensus.

You're quoting a paper created for an ultra right wing think tank. In fact, these are the same guys who previously worked with the tobacco industry to question the science behind secondhand smoke leading to cancer. Do you honestly think that listening to these guys on scientific matters is a good idea?

Additionally, the guy who wrote the paper you base your opinion on has had his papers repeatedly rejected by peer reviewers for their poor quality. Does basing your opinion on them seem like a good idea?

Finally, even if you wanted to use your standard the only thing you could say about category 3 is that the extent of their endorsement is unknown. If you wanted to stick to ones that explicitly endorse or reject global warming, then we end up with a rejection percentage of 25/1024 or... about 2.4%. Even lower than before, actually.

I think you may be seeing what you want to see.

 

[OutHouse]

when will the world start bitching at china for all the damage they are doing to the planet?

 

[ivwshane]

Really, when you get right down to it, the only reason to be against climate change policies which aim to reduce mans impact, is for monetary reasons.

Other than money related reasons why would anyone be against reducing mans impact on the earth? Who doesn't like clean air? Who doesn't want more efficient vehicles? Who doesn't like unmolested land?

So for me it really doesn't matter if climate change is caused by man or not, we should be supporting policies that keep our earth clean no matter what.

 

[smackababy]

when will the world start bitching at china for all the damage they are doing to the planet?

When the world gets tired of cheap goods or China industrializes to the point manufacturing moves to a cheaper country like Vietnam.

 

[smackababy]

Really, when you get right down to it, the only reason to be against climate change policies which aim to reduce mans impact, is for monetary reasons.

Other than money related reasons why would anyone be against reducing mans impact on the earth? Who doesn't like clean air? Who doesn't want more efficient vehicles? Who doesn't like unmolested land?

So for me it really doesn't matter if climate change is caused by man or not, we should be supporting policies that keep our earth clean no matter what.

Because, regardless of what you choose to believe, currently any "fixing" has a monetary impact on those consuming. Sure, if magically, you could wave your wand and convert all energy to clean, renewable, magically produced energy, everyone would be all for it. Except, you can't. Converting costs lots of money, and that cost isn't absorbed by those in charge, that is for sure. It is passed right on down to the people who are paying for it.

And, we have a moronic fear of nuclear energy in this country, so we aren't going to that any time soon.

 

[BoberFett]

Really, when you get right down to it, the only reason to be against climate change policies which aim to reduce mans impact, is for monetary reasons.

Other than money related reasons why would anyone be against reducing mans impact on the earth? Who doesn't like clean air? Who doesn't want more efficient vehicles? Who doesn't like unmolested land?

So for me it really doesn't matter if climate change is caused by man or not, we should be supporting policies that keep our earth clean no matter what.

Agree completely. Keeping our environment clean should be a no-brainer.

But the real world affect on the lifestyles of Americans will result in mass unrest.

Raise taxes on energy in order to offset carbon, and see how long the politicians who enact it stay in power.

 

[Brainonska511]

Even if we started planning to shut down coal and gas power plants NOW in the United States, it would likely take over a decade to complete the process. Meanwhile, China and other developing nations will keep increasing their CO2 emissions, canceling out what minimal progress the US makes. So, it's a zero sum gain. Sorry gang, but we're basically screwed until someone finds a way to make renewable fuels more cost effective than fossil fuels.

Sounds like a case of "since we can't fix everything, let's do nothing."

 

[PokerGuy]

Really, when you get right down to it, the only reason to be against climate change policies which aim to reduce mans impact, is for monetary reasons.

So?

Other than money related reasons why would anyone be against reducing mans impact on the earth? Who doesn't like clean air? Who doesn't want more efficient vehicles? Who doesn't like unmolested land?

So for me it really doesn't matter if climate change is caused by man or not, we should be supporting policies that keep our earth clean no matter what.

Really, no matter what huh? So if a new policy destroys the economy we should do it anyway because there's the possibility that it might possibly reduce man's impact on the earth?

There is a cost to everything. You want more efficient vehicles? No problem, but it will cost more and they will be less safe. That's the trade-off. Most people would be all for doing things to clean the environment, but there are costs involved (in both money and power/government control) that are not always palatable.

The bottom line is that nobody has presented any feasible realistic solutions as of yet. If there were easy answers, they would have been implemented already.

 

[michal1980]

So now science is like an election, the more votes you have the more right you are?

Damn all those humans who have been changing earths temperatures for hundreds of thousands of years.

Ah yes, the fucktard version of climatology brought to us by michal1980. "Climate has changed before humans, so why should that stop us from deliberately fucking up the world today? I eat my own feces!"

When you have nothing just call me names.


But did you look at those graphs? The temps went way up without humans, and way down without humans.

Yet this time its different, this time the temperatures are going up because of something humans did.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

But did you look at those graphs? The temps went way up without humans, and way down without humans.

Yet this time its different, this time the temperatures are going up because of something humans did.

This line of reasoning is tantamount to saying "an asteroid killed the dinosaurs, therefore humans couldn't possibly be responsible for any extinction." Just because extinctions have happened without human involvement doesn't mean that we can't cause others. Similarly, just because the climate has changed before humans came along doesn't mean our actions couldn't impact climate change.

 

[desy]

science gave you those graphs and science has explained away most of what occurred at those points in history precipitating those changes and YES yet this time its different is because science has determined humans are behind it

 

[Paul98]

When you have nothing just call me names.


But did you look at those graphs? The temps went way up without humans, and way down without humans.

Yet this time its different, this time the temperatures are going up because of something humans did.

Correct, the climate has always changed due to a verity of things. In the past humans had little or impact. This time is different and humans have a sizable impact on the climate.

Someone saying that climate changed in the past means that humans have no impact would make them an idiot and not even worth the time.

 

[ivwshane]

So?



Really, no matter what huh? So if a new policy destroys the economy we should do it anyway because there's the possibility that it might possibly reduce man's impact on the earth?

There is a cost to everything. You want more efficient vehicles? No problem, but it will cost more and they will be less safe. That's the trade-off. Most people would be all for doing things to clean the environment, but there are costs involved (in both money and power/government control) that are not always palatable.

The bottom line is that nobody has presented any feasible realistic solutions as of yet. If there were easy answers, they would have been implemented already.

If you have to use hyperbole to make your point then your point is pretty weak to begin with.

All your other points are just bullshit unless you have some studies to back then up.

 

[michal1980]

This line of reasoning is tantamount to saying "an asteroid killed the dinosaurs, therefore humans couldn't possibly be responsible for any extinction." Just because extinctions have happened without human involvement doesn't mean that we can't cause others. Similarly, just because the climate has changed before humans came along doesn't mean our actions couldn't impact climate change.

Correct, the climate has always changed due to a verity of things. In the past humans had little or impact. This time is different and humans have a sizable impact on the climate.

Someone saying that climate changed in the past means that humans have no impact would make them an idiot and not even worth the time.

are you looking at the data? Or are you so stuck on man made global warming that you cant see past you bias?

I see a pattern in the data, nothing in the charts I posted seems out of line.

How is this current peak any different then the ones in the past?

 

[Oldgamer]

Don't pull a dave and start replying to your own posts, you're better than that.

Hey fuck off, I can reply to my own posts if I want to..LOL

 

[Paul98]

are you looking at the data? Or are you so stuck on man made global warming that you cant see past you bias?

I see a pattern in the data, nothing in the charts I posted seems out of line.

How is this current peak any different then the ones in the past?

Ah I see you are an idiot and aren't worth my time.

 

[michal1980]

Ah I see you are an idiot and aren't worth my time.

In order words you have nothing. Just ignore history because it doesn't fit your current model.

 

[Paratus]

are you looking at the data? Or are you so stuck on man made global warming that you cant see past you bias?

I see a pattern in the data, nothing in the charts I posted seems out of line.

How is this current peak any different then the ones in the past?

It's different because it's not being caused by fluctuations in the suns output, orbital variations, volcanism, geophysical changes, or natural changes in bacteria or algae populations, or natural atmospheric changes.

The very same researchers whose data you sit here touting are telling you we've ruled out the natural reasons that caused changes in the past and confirmed that it's mostly our doing.

I've answered your question why this time is different.

 

[K1052]

are you looking at the data? Or are you so stuck on man made global warming that you cant see past you bias?

I see a pattern in the data, nothing in the charts I posted seems out of line.

How is this current peak any different then the ones in the past?

You are misrepresenting data to fit your preferred conclusion.

 

[soulcougher73]

Obligatory picture