• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama Admin - Belive in Climate change, or dont work here.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
werepossum said:
They sure do. Depending on whose numbers you like, this happened four to seven years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/business/worldbusiness/07pollute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/20/group-china-passes-us-as-world-top-emitter-carbon-dioxide/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

http://www.newser.com/story/3282/chinas-co2-output-passes-us.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15444858

http://www.greenworldinvestor.com/2...-surpasses-usa-in-energy-consumption-as-well/

http://www.afeas.org/overview.php

You're looking at the old proggie taking points, dude. The new proggie talking points require pointing out that China's per-capita CO2 emissions aren't projected to pass ours for three or four more years, even allowing for our depressed economy and their booming economy. (Evidently the Chinese have succeeded in cloning Obama and consequently have several Obamas to our one - that's the only possible explanation for the disparity in economic situations.) This doesn't even touch on more significant and damaging pollutants or even stronger greenhouse gases such as sulphur compounds or fluorine compounds - especially chlorofluorocarbons - which are banned or heavily regulated in the USA but still widely used and produced in China and also India.
Click to expand...

Ahhh yes, always with the delusional progressive conspiracy. Where do I get my talking points from, anyway?

Actually, what I was thinking of was industrialized nations as a whole vs. India and China as had been discussed in a previous thread so thanks for the correction. I'll alert the rest of the Worldwide Progressive Conspiracy that we need to come up with a new way to subvert Honest Hardworking Americans.
 
eskimospy said:
Ahhh yes, always with the delusional progressive conspiracy. Where do I get my talking points from, anyway?

Actually, what I was thinking of was industrialized nations as a whole vs. India and China as had been discussed in a previous thread so thanks for the correction. I'll alert the rest of the Worldwide Progressive Conspiracy that we need to come up with a new way to subvert Honest Hardworking Americans.
Click to expand...

you get your talking points from carney. heck, you might be carney with all the spinning you do for obama
 
eskimospy said:
Ahhh yes, always with the delusional progressive conspiracy. Where do I get my talking points from, anyway?

Actually, what I was thinking of was industrialized nations as a whole vs. India and China as had been discussed in a previous thread so thanks for the correction. I'll alert the rest of the Worldwide Progressive Conspiracy that we need to come up with a new way to subvert Honest Hardworking Americans.
Click to expand...
Evidently you get your talking points from Big Lots of Progressive Talking Points. I suggest going directly to the White House for their Lie of the Day special. It's usually fresh.

Would it help if I typed "BAZINGA!"?
 
There are a lot of people who would benefit from pushing "climate change".

Environmentalists love the phrases because it's a mode to push their agenda (I'm all for environmentalist but it's just the truth). It gives them a monster to represent their cause and a face to it.

Green companies (solar, wind, and others) love it because they make billions from getting people to believe they are being good people. I'm all for solar and wind too so don't get me wrong. But when money is on the table companies and people will use anything they can.

And certain politicians love it to who get campaign contributions and support from said company and all the votes from green people and environmentalists. It makes them look like the good guy.

Scientists love it because their bills keep getting paid to research it. Honestly who is not going to do their best to keep their job going and support it however they can?

The weather stations love it because it gets them viewers so concerned they have to tune in.

In the 70's they couldn't make "global cooling" work as they called it. In the 80's they started "global warming" and made some headway with that, now they had to change to "Climate change" to make it fit with the agenda. Now they make every single disaster or storm as the cause being "climate change". It's ridiculous.

Now you've got all the huge car companies involved. And the government involved in the car companies. They are all pushing these electric cars. Billions more on the line. They love "climate change". Everyone who drives their car is now an eco warrior for the planet.

All i'm saying is, like anything else, follow the money, power, or motive. To think that everyone would be totally honest is foolish.
 
Yes, all of these scientists, solar panel companies and politicians have been pushing climate change for over 10 years on the hopes they might make a ton of money. They must have really bright investment advisors.

Scientists are not at risk of losing their job if they are wrong, they would simply try to figure out why they are wrong to better understand the global climate. They are recieving funding the same way other scientists are recieving funding at universities. Your telling me thousands of scientists are willing to risk their integrity by falsely claiming climate change is happening. Further there have been investigations into the scientific research and no misrepresentation has ever been found.

Follow the money? These politicians, companies and scientists have to have the money first before they can fund a global disinformation campaign. Obviously the most onhand money exsists in the oil industry who stand to lose the most from cap and trade or other regulations.

Climate skepticism is an ideological symptom which is unique to the united states. By claiming its a conspiracy you are also discounting every climate scientist in every country around the world. So apparently you think there is global collusion between scientists around the world? How moronic can the republican party actually get?
 
BlueWolf47 said:
Yes, all of these scientists, solar panel companies and politicians have been pushing climate change for over 10 years on the hopes they might make a ton of money. They must have really bright investment advisors.

Scientists are not at risk of losing their job if they are wrong, they would simply try to figure out why they are wrong to better understand the global climate. They are recieving funding the same way other scientists are recieving funding at universities. Your telling me thousands of scientists are willing to risk their integrity by falsely claiming climate change is happening. Further there have been investigations into the scientific research and no misrepresentation has ever been found.

Follow the money? These politicians, companies and scientists have to have the money first before they can fund a global disinformation campaign. Obviously the most onhand money exsists in the oil industry who stand to lose the most from cap and trade or other regulations.

Climate skepticism is an ideological symptom which is unique to the united states. By claiming its a conspiracy you are also discounting every climate scientist in every country around the world. So apparently you think there is global collusion between scientists around the world? How moronic can the republican party actually get?
Click to expand...

Theres almost zero risk to the scientist for pushing bad 'science' for decades. They'll ride the gravy train as long as they can. Once/If proven wrong, they'll just jump ship, and support whatever the new theory is. And just tell the public that there's new data that supports the new conclusion.
 
So are you willing to condemn all of these scientific organizations?

the National Academy of Sciences,
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

the American Geophysical Union,
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

the American Institute of Physics,
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/042.html
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

the American Physical Society,
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

the American Meteorological Society,
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

the American Statistical Association,
http://www.amstat.org/news/climatechange.cfm

the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/

the Federation of American Scientists,
http://www.fas.org/press/statements/_docs/08grand_challenges.html

the American Quaternary Association,
http://www.inqua.org/documents/QP 16-2.pdf
http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf

the American Society of Agronomy,
https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf

the Crop Science Society of America,
https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf

the Soil Science Society of America,
https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf

the American Astronomical Society,
http://aas.org/governance/resolutions.php#climate#climate

the American Chemical Society,
http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_011538/pdf/WPCP_011538.pdf

the Geological Society of America,
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm

the American Institute of Biological Sciences,
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

the American Society for Microbiology,
http://www.asm.org/images/docfilename/0000006005/globalwarming[1].pdf

the Society of American Foresters,
http://www.safnet.org/fp/documents/climate_change_expires12-8-2013.pdf
http://www.safnet.org/publications/jof/jof_cctf.pdf

the Australian Institute of Physics,
http://www.aip.org.au/scipolicy/Science Policy.pdf

the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,
http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/26

the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO,
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf

the Geological Society of Australia,


the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies,
http://www.fasts.org/images/policy-discussion/statement-climate-change.pdf

the Australian Coral Reef Society,
http://www.australiancoralreefsocie...a51-a77e-4ae0-bd9f-67e459d57ac1&groupId=10136

the Royal Society of the UK,


the Royal Meteorological Society,
http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332

the British Antarctic Survey,
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science/climate/position-statement.php

the Geological Society of London,
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/policy_statements/page7426.html

the Society of Biology (UK),
http://www.societyofbiology.org/policy/policy-issues/climate-change

the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences,


the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

the Royal Society of New Zealand,
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/organisation/panels/climate/climate-change-statement/

the Polish Academy of Sciences,


the European Science Foundation,


the European Geosciences Union,
http://www.egu.eu/statements/positi...spheric-and-climate-sciences-7-july-2005.html
http://www.egu.eu/statements/egu-position-statement-on-ocean-acidification.html

the European Physical Society,
http://nuclear.epsdivisions.org/Reports/eps-position-paper-energy-for-the-future

the European Federation of Geologists,


the Network of African Science Academies,
http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=4825

the International Union for Quaternary Research,
http://www.inqua.org/documents/iscc.pdf

the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics,
http://www.iugg.org/resolutions/perugia07.pdf

the Wildlife Society (International),
http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/35-Global Climate Change and Wildlife.pdf

and the World Meteorological Organization.
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/mediacentre/statann/documents/SG21_2006_E.pdf

There aren’t any national or international scientific societies disputing the conclusion that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely to be due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, though a few are non-committal.

The last organization to oppose this conclusion was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG). They changed their position statement in 2007 to a non-committal position because they recognized that AAPG doesn’t have experience or credibility in the field of climate change and wisely said “… as a group we have no particular claim to knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics through either our education or our daily professional work.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Non-committal_statements
http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf
http://64.207.34.58/StaticContent/3/TPGs/2010_TPGMarApr.pdf
 
michal1980 said:
Theres almost zero risk to the scientist for pushing bad 'science' for decades. They'll ride the gravy train as long as they can. Once/If proven wrong, they'll just jump ship, and support whatever the new theory is. And just tell the public that there's new data that supports the new conclusion.
Click to expand...

You mean a scientist will change his hypothesis if new information is found and supported that makes the old one untenable?

Here's a pro tip, just for you Michal:

That's how science works.

Science as a whole isn't a dogmatic ideological troll such as yourself. The scientific method filters bullshit and it does it well.
 
Bowfinger said:
I'm not at all surprised that you've again ignored factual data in favor of cherry-picked, out of context anecdotes that match your feelings. I'm also not sure what either of them has to do with green energy. Your comment about stewards of Mother Nature is a straw man, since I suggested nothing of the sort. I don't expect that fact to deter you either. Now, do you have any credible data to refute what I said, or is "useless" the best you can do?
Click to expand...

please post your facts. please post your credible data, and my mother nature comment is not a strawman, i don't even think you know what that means because you sure do like to throw that out there to anybody who dares to disagree with you.

if the pictures are too hard for you to understand, there is no hope you.
 
Paratus said:
You need to read The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov. It's a short essay and should only take 10 minutes to read.

The science may not be totally accurate yet but it's a long way from wrong.
Click to expand...

"The science may not be totally accurate yet but it's a long way from wrong."

I would slap "Deniers" with those very words for those who think CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere. But when I attack efforts to destroy this country over the specter of Global Warming, I want them to be DAMN certain that Climate Sensitivity is more than 1C.

The forecasting of doom and gloom is a "long way" from right depending on the exact number of Climate Sensitivity. CO2's atmospheric warming is a logarithmic curve where by most of the warming effect is in the first 20 ppm. It all goes down hill from there and very little warming is felt. They have no idea where we're at in the curve, and thus they have no idea what Climate Sensitivity is.

Retarded linear extrapolations of the 20 year warming period of the 80s and 90s is not how you determine Climate Sensitivity. Especially when the following 20 years have ZERO warming trend. As an effect of that, they immediately have to cut their estimates in half. Who knows how far they'll have to drop the number until their delusions catch up to reality?

I'm not saying the basic science of CO2 is wrong, just their use of it. It's a nice ploy to declare war against abundent energy. I'm certainly not willing to give that up if Climate Sensitivity isn't proven to be something disastrous and thus far nothing special is happening to dispute my assertion that this is all much ado about nothing.

I'll take a few degrees of warmth to keep billions alive with clean food and water.
 
Pens1566 said:
Lol thread
Click to expand...

It's an awesome thread. It's got drama, emotion and demonstrates a comedic level of ignorance.

So who has a solution not based on hamstringing the economy by punishing with taxes and political agenda and why isn't anyone interested in such a thing?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
It's an awesome thread. It's got drama, emotion and demonstrates a comedic level of ignorance.

So who has a solution not based on hamstringing the economy by punishing with taxes and political agenda and why isn't anyone interested in such a thing?
Click to expand...
Love that phase, too. "Punishing with taxes." Always cracks me up.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
It's an awesome thread. It's got drama, emotion and demonstrates a comedic level of ignorance.

So who has a solution not based on hamstringing the economy by punishing with taxes and political agenda and why isn't anyone interested in such a thing?
Click to expand...

Punishing with taxes? How so? When you create CO2 in large quantities you are creating a pollutant. A carbon tax is designed so that you compensate society for the damage you do to the environment. Why would you want to encourage freeloading?
 
OutHouse said:
please post your facts. please post your credible data,
Click to expand...
Start here: http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...untry_may_lead_the_global_climate_change.html


and my mother nature comment is not a strawman, i don't even think you know what that means because you sure do like to throw that out there to anybody who dares to disagree with you.
Click to expand...
Thus proving that it is you who doesn't know what a straw man is. You aren't "daring to disagree" with me when you're attacking a position I didn't take. You're just making noise. I said nothing suggesting I felt China was good "stewards for mother nature (sic)". Those are entirely your words, inventing a position I didn't take. That is exactly why it was a straw man.

I don't think China is a good steward of Mother Nature overall. It is, however, ahead of the U.S. in adopting green energy, which is what I actually said. Now, are you capable of addressing the point I did make, or are you just going to cry more?


if the pictures are too hard for you to understand, there is no hope you.
Click to expand...
Apparently English is too hard for you to understand. I had no trouble at all understanding the pictures. Indeed, your anger is because I understood them perfectly well. They are cherry-picked, emotional anecdotes that are irrelevant to my point about China adopting green energy. (Strangely enough, once again that's what I said. I'm sorry those words were beyond your comprehension.) While it is certainly true China has tremendous problems with pollution and waste -- something I never disputed -- they are nonetheless ahead of the U.S. in adopting green energy.
 
eskimospy said:
Punishing with taxes? How so? When you create CO2 in large quantities you are creating a pollutant. A carbon tax is designed so that you compensate society for the damage you do to the environment. Why would you want to encourage freeloading?
Click to expand...

CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's a naturally occurring gas that humans / animals exhale and plants take in.

The balance may be out of whack, but in my opinion it's bad to think of it as a pollutant.
 
Juddog said:
CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's a naturally occurring gas that humans / animals exhale and plants take in.

The balance may be out of whack, but in my opinion it's bad to think of it as a pollutant.
Click to expand...

CO2 is a pollutant as covered by the Clean Air Act and the EPA.

Just because something is naturally occurring doesn't mean that it is not bad for our environment in excessive quantities. There are lots and lots of things that are absolutely essential for our lives in small or modest quantities, but incredibly destructive in large quantities.
 
Juddog said:
CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's a naturally occurring gas that humans / animals exhale and plants take in.

The balance may be out of whack, but in my opinion it's bad to think of it as a pollutant.
Click to expand...

I guess we could argue symantics but clearly excess CO2 from non naturally occuring sources is having a negative impact on our climate. Now this impact may be over dramaticized at times, but long term it could be catastrophic. Venus is a good example of a run away green house effect.

I will compare your polutant argument to that of toxic chemicals. Any naturally occurring substance becomes toxic if consumed in an amount that exceeds a certain threshold.
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
CO2 is a pollutant as covered by the Clean Air Act and the EPA.

Just because something is naturally occurring doesn't mean that it is not bad for our environment in excessive quantities. There are lots and lots of things that are absolutely essential for our lives in small or modest quantities, but incredibly destructive in large quantities.
Click to expand...

Like dihydrogen monoxide. That stuff can be toxic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top