Global Warming: Death Of An Issue

[The Prof]

Though the 2012 Democratic Party platform declares that the “national security threat from climate change is real, urgent, and severe,” it is apparently not urgent and severe enough to merit mention by speakers at the Democratic National Convention during the past two days.

The Daily Caller reviewed the speech transcripts of the over 80 speakers who took the stage at the Time Warner Cable Arena here in Charlotte on Tuesday and Wednesday, and only one mentioned climate change — and even he only mentioned it in passing.

“Thanks to President Obama, America is laying the foundation for the way we power tomorrow,” said Tom Steyer, co-founder of the Advanced Energy Economy trade association, in one of the early and therefore likely least watched speeches to the convention Wednesday.

“Gov. Romney’s road to the future will lead to dirty air and increasing climate volatility, uncertainty over energy prices, and less security, not more,” Steyer continued. “President Obama’s road to the future will lead us to energy independence, energy security, a safer and cleaner environment, and countless new jobs that can never be outsourced.”

That reference to “increasing climate volatility” was the only explicit reference to climate change in two days of speakers.

Democrats mention Climate change once in over 80 speeches | The Daily Caller

odd, no?

after all, the platform (which was for God before it was against Him) sees climate change as the apocalypse

“the change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources, new suffering from drought and famine, catastrophic natural disasters, and the degradation of vital ecosystems across the globe,” the platform proclaims

"we know that global climate change is one of the biggest threats of this generation---an economic, environmental, and national security catastrophe in the making

indeed, the words "climate change" appear 18 times in that godless platform that throws israel under the same bus that squashed obama's own spiritual mentor, jermiah wright

it's the end of the world, y'know

but mr's castro and kerry and biden and ms's warren and pelosi and caroline kennedy, it appears, forgot

gosh, if you take investment in green energy away from president punt's talking points, what's left?

sandra fluke's birth control pills and the kkk

oh well

seeya at the polls, progressives

wear a jacket, november can be cold

 

[Tafeldienst]

Democrats mention Climate change once in over 80 speeches | The Daily Caller

odd, no?

after all, the platform (which was for God before it was against Him) sees climate change as the apocalypse

“the change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources, new suffering from drought and famine, catastrophic natural disasters, and the degradation of vital ecosystems across the globe,” the platform proclaims

"we know that global climate change is one of the biggest threats of this generation---an economic, environmental, and national security catastrophe in the making

indeed, the words "climate change" appear 18 times in that godless platform that throws israel under the same bus that squashed obama's own spiritual mentor, jermiah wright

it's the end of the world, y'know

but mr's castro and kerry and biden and ms's warren and pelosi and caroline kennedy, it appears, forgot

gosh, if you take investment in green energy away from president punt's talking points, what's left?

sandra fluke's birth control pills and the kkk

oh well

seeya at the polls, progressives

wear a jacket, november can be cold

Healthcare!

 

[jerry7]

They didn't need to mention it at the convention because new standards have already been issued by the EPA and are now being enforced. Because the American public knows that much of the hysteria created by the left around this issue is fraudulent the Obama administation has bypassed Congress and the legislative process and taken the judicial route as they have on so many other matters. Why call attention to an issue that they have already won?

AP: Federal court upholds EPA's global warming regulations*|*Garden City Telegram
EPA Global Warming Regulations Could Send Economy Back Into Recession, Report Says | cnsnews.com

 

[OpportunityCost]

Healthcare!

More like abortionpalooza but if you want to frame it as healthcare, go for it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

They didn't need to mention it at the convention because new standards have already been issued by the EPA and are now being enforced. Because the American public knows that much of the hysteria created by the left around this issue is fraudulent the Obama administation has bypassed Congress and the legislative process and taken the judicial route as they have on so many other matters. Why call attention to an issue that they have already won?

AP: Federal court upholds EPA's global warming regulations*|*Garden City Telegram
EPA Global Warming Regulations Could Send Economy Back Into Recession, Report Says | cnsnews.com

Why call attention to something that is possible to cause backlash because it is certainly causing job loss would seem more accurate to me.

 

[teamosil]

Obviously all educated people know AGW is real. There isn't really any scientific question about it. 98% of climatologists agree that it is a real and serious issue. Smart people were done debating it a decade or three ago. You'll also notice that they didn't spend much time on whether evolution was real, where Obama was born or whether the earth was flat. Those aren't interesting questions to educated, smart, people because they are profoundly and completely resolved questions.

But, regardless, the notion that it was downplayed in the convention is totally absurd. Biden talked extensively about how as the most powerful nation in the world, part of our role is to fight to protect the environment of the world. Dozens of speakers talked about the new fuel efficiency standards, including all the big names. Even Obama himself talked about it for a while. It was definitely a prominent issue.

 

[The Prof]

in his beyond-strange acceptance speech tonite, president punt forgot to mention his health care bill

as for the rise of the seas and the end of the world:

"after thirty years of inaction, we raised fuel standards so that by the middle of the next decade, cars and trucks will go twice as far on a gallon of gas, we've doubled our use of renewable energy, and thousands of Americans have jobs today building wind turbines and long-lasting batteries, in the last year alone, we cut oil imports by one million barrels a day, more than any administration in recent history, and today, the united states of america is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in nearly two decades"

go twice as far, huh?

that sounds pretty good

 

[OpportunityCost]

Obviously all educated people know AGW is real. There isn't really any scientific question about it. 98% of climatologists agree that it is a real and serious issue. Smart people were done debating it a decade or three ago. You'll also notice that they didn't spend much time on whether evolution was real, where Obama was born or whether the earth was flat. Those aren't interesting questions to educated, smart, people because they are profoundly and completely resolved questions.

But, regardless, the notion that it was downplayed in the convention is totally absurd. Biden talked extensively about how as the most powerful nation in the world, part of our role is to fight to protect the environment of the world. Dozens of speakers talked about the new fuel efficiency standards, including all the big names. Even Obama himself talked about it for a while. It was definitely a prominent issue.

If you have to begin a thesis with the word obviously, it probably aint so obvious.

Bolded: Not as big as abortion but hey.....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Obviously all educated people know AGW is real.

Not true at all. There are plenty of very-well-educated people who have not fallen for this fraudulent hoax.

 

[Zyphlin]

Moderator's Warning:

OP's topic is "Death of an issue" regarding global warming. While it about due to convention speechs, main focus is talking about its import in political discussion today. Thread moved as it's nor primarily concerning the presidential election itself

 

[sawyerloggingon]

When everything is rosey people have time and energy to worry about non issues. Right now everything is far from rosey and people care about one thing, the economy. obama was smart not to bring this BS up right now, people would just roll their eyes.

 

[teamosil]

Not true at all. There are plenty of very-well-educated people who have not fallen for this fraudulent hoax.

No, there really aren't hardly any educated deniers. Again, 98% of climatologists contend that AGW has been scientifically proven. If you are talking with a highly educated conservative and you ask them whether they believe in AGW, they won't just say "yes" or "no", they will get offended that you even asked. They will angrily, and rightly, tell you that just because they are conservative doesn't mean that they are stupid, and that of course they believe in it. It isn't a real issue, it is a political stance. Denial of AGW is comparable to the campaign by the tobacco companies to convince the American people that the link between smoking and cancer was still scientifically debatable. No educated people believed that. Not the conservative politicians saying it, not the tobacco companies, nobody who knew anything. The only people who did were the portion of the Republican voters that were not informed enough to see through the way they were being manipulated. Well, that is what big oil is doing now. In fact, they hired most of the same PR firms that big tobacco did to do the same thing. There have been several internal memos from the oil lobby that have leaked over the years where they have talked about it in incredibly explicit ways at this point. In one of them, they flat out laid out that the science of AGW was irrefutable and that the only way they could counter it was to try to confuse the issue to make voters believe that it was still debatable. The oil industry has offered huge sums of money to any scientists that are willing to work to disprove AGW, but they get practically no takers and those they get come up with nothing. For example, the Koch brothers paid millions to scientists to get them to say that the warming was the result of urbanization, but the only scientists they could get to make that claim ended up concluding that it was not the case and that AGW was in fact real. They quit, gave back the money, and announced it.

You should not be so easy to manipulate.

 

[ecofarm]

No, there really aren't hardly any educated deniers. Again, 98% of climatologists contend that AGW has been scientifically proven.

I've yet to see a scientist give us a percentage for AGW's contribution to climate change. As the earth has had many rapid heating events, it cannot be presumed as 100% of the cause.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Global warming has been a topic of discussion - in speeches, etc - for DECADES.

 

[teamosil]

I've yet to see a scientist give us a percentage for AGW's contribution to climate change. As the earth has had many rapid heating events, it cannot be presumed as 100% of the cause.

You're thinking about it backwards. You're assuming that the scientists went out and saw that the earth was warming and then thought "hmm, what could be causing this?" and there were two categories of candidates- man made and natural causes.

It is actually the other way around. Scientists have understood that greenhouse gasses cause warming for something like 150 years. That is an easily measurable phenomenon. They knew how greenhouse gasses worked way before they had access to reliable, precise, long term historical temperature data from the whole world. So, when that kind of data started to become available, they looked at it to determine whether the theory was in fact playing out as expected or if there were some kind of unknown natural process that was somehow countering it or something. As you know, of course, they found that it was indeed happening.

So, what percentage of the warming is caused by man isn't a meaningful question. They know, and have known for many many generations now, that X amount of greenhouse gasses causes Y amount of warming. They know now that the earth is indeed warming. The last 12 months were the hottest 12 months ever. They know that if we stopped releasing X amount of greenhouse gasses, that temperature would fall by Y. That would still be true regardless of whether the temperature goes up or down naturally. Natural factors that affect the temperature aren't relevant. They do indeed cause the temperature to go up and down all the time. But we know that the temperature at any given time is what it would naturally be plus Y. So, if warming is bad, we know that we can control that problem by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and we know how much of those emissions we need to role back to achieve a particular effect.

 

[ecofarm]

So, what percentage of the warming is caused by man isn't a meaningful question. They know, and have known for many many generations now, that X amount of greenhouse gasses causes Y amount of warming.

That's not really true. We can estimate the CO2 in the atmosphere for various extrapolated previous temps, but exact causation (including percentages) remains elusive.

You're thinking about it backwards.

I have an MSc in International Environmental Science - from Europe.

 

[Deuce]

I've yet to see a scientist give us a percentage for AGW's contribution to climate change. As the earth has had many rapid heating events, it cannot be presumed as 100% of the cause.

Nobody is presuming things science doesn't work that way.

 

[flogger]

Scientists have understood that greenhouse gasses cause warming for something like 150 years.That is an easily measurable phenomenon.

On the contrary its far from easily measurable far harder still even detecting the minute human CO 2 fingerprint on this much less being able to measure it and hence legislate for its reductions.

They knew how greenhouse gasses worked way before they had access to reliable, precise, long term historical temperature data from the whole world.

On the contrary thats always been pretty theoretical stuff thats virtually impossible to empirically quantify with any kind of absolute accuracy.

So, when that kind of data started to become available, they looked at it to determine whether the theory was in fact playing out as expected or if there were some kind of unknown natural process that was somehow countering it or something. As you know, of course, they found that it was indeed happening.

No they asserted mankind was automatically guilty until proven innocent so that the 'debate' was over before it even started. I'm sorry but thats not how science works

So, what percentage of the warming is caused by man isn't a meaningful question.

Eh ? Its the absolutely fundamental and one we need proven answers for before tearing down our economies . They simply dont have them

They know, and have known for many many generations now, that X amount of greenhouse gasses causes Y amount of warming.

Given they have no idea of the actual climate sensitivity for CO 2 in its entirety much less mankinds tiny contribution to it that comment is nonsensical

They know now that the earth is indeed warming. The last 12 months were the hottest 12 months ever.

Given how short our records currently are that statement is meaningless. What we do know is recent warming peaked in 1998 despite this years 'Hansenized' GISS figures to the contrary.

They know that if we stopped releasing X amount of greenhouse gasses, that temperature would fall by Y.

They know nothing of the sort ! :roll:

That would still be true regardless of whether the temperature goes up or down naturally. Natural factors that affect the temperature aren't relevant.

They are now and always have been very relevant ! :roll:

They do indeed cause the temperature to go up and down all the time. But we know that the temperature at any given time is what it would naturally be plus Y.

We know nothing of the sort. You seem to be a real sucker for the hype and I'm guessing a true disciple of the church of climate modelling.

So, if warming is bad, we know that we can control that problem by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and we know how much of those emissions we need to role back to achieve a particular effect

And you actually claim we know this ! :lamo

 

[teamosil]

...stuff....

Why would we take the scientific assertions of some joe blow off the street like you over the actual findings of the actual scientists?

 

[flogger]

Why would we take the scientific assertions of some joe blow off the street like you over the actual findings of the actual scientists?

Given you arent posting the 'findings' of actual scientists but citing more cliched hype and alarmist disinformation soundbites in a single post than I have ever seen, thats a moot point frankly :roll:

 

[teamosil]

Given you arent posting the 'findings' of actual scientists but citing more cliched hype and alarmist disinformation soundbites in a single post than I have ever seen, thats a moot point frankly :roll:

No, again, 98% of climatologists confirm that AGW has been scientifically proven.

So, against the overwhelming consensus of scientists, we have your assertion that it hasn't been proven.

Why would we pick your assertion over the actual scientists that have the education and experience to understand the issue, the resources to study it in depth and who dedicate all their time to doing just that?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, there really aren't hardly any educated deniers.…

You should not be so easy to manipulate.

—————

—————

 

[teamosil]

—————
View attachment 67133931
—————

Er, are you saying that you think believing in science rather than politicians is being "easy to manipulate" lol? Uhhhh, I think you might want to give that another think.

 

[flogger]

No, again, 98% of climatologists confirm that AGW has been scientifically proven.

Not the dodgy Doran Zimmermann poll again :roll: 77 scientists out of the 10,257 polled isnt 98% of anything whatever way you slice it.

So, against the overwhelming consensus of scientists, we have your assertion that it hasn't been proven.

I dont need to make assertions I have no agenda to defend . I only seek the truth from the blizzard of politicized disinformation on this issue.

Why would we pick your assertion over the actual scientists that have the education and experience to understand the issue, the resources to study it in depth and who dedicate all their time to doing just that ?

If you had actually studied what many of the leading names in the climate field were actually saying rather than buying the hype at face value you might have a case. Your earlier post was so chock full of misrepresentations falsehood and misconceptions its clear you have not bothered to check on the actual scientific validity of any the claims you are making.

 

[teamosil]

Not the dodgy Doran Zimmermann poll again :roll: 77 scientists out of the 10,257 polled isnt 98% of anything whatever way you slice it.

Actually there have been two surveys. The Doran one found that 97% of climatologists that actively publish say that AGW has been scientifically proven. Just a few months ago a different organization did it again, again sending the survey to all known climatologists in the country, and by then it had risen to 98%.

I dont need to make assertions I have no agenda to defend

You aren't making sense. You are indeed taking the position that we should not do anything about AGW. All we have to back that position up is your assertions. Just a bunch of stuff some random dude made up. How does that counter 98% of climatologists?

I only seek the truth from the blizzard of politicized disinformation on this issue.

So, when 98% of scientists and 50% of politicians say that something has been scientifically proven, and less than 2% of scientists and 50% of politicians say it has not, which side is the political disinformation again?