New White House Climate Report (1 Viewer)

[rickc]

has anyone read it. Seems to say man made climate change is real. What do you think?

is this just more sensationalism by the global warming alarmists

or

the reality of our future

 

[ecofarm]

Too many people on the side of science had no idea really what they were talking about and so the debate became an all or nothing deal. That's ignorant. Even among scientists, a few percent is debated. That doesn't mean the significance of AGW is debated; it means a few percent here and there are debated.

Let me guess. The report says some but less than consensus.

 

[Xelor]

has anyone read it. Seems to say man made climate change is real. What do you think?

is this just more sensationalism by the global warming alarmists

or

the reality of our future

Red:
Yes. There's a link to it and three key excepts from it here: We find no convincing evidence ....

 

[Threegoofs]

has anyone read it. Seems to say man made climate change is real. What do you think?

is this just more sensationalism by the global warming alarmists

or

the reality of our future

Seems to?

LOL

 

[Myview]

Yes its real.

 

[MSgt]

Too many people on the side of science had no idea really what they were talking about and so the debate became an all or nothing deal. That's ignorant. Even among scientists, a few percent is debated. That doesn't mean the significance of AGW is debated; it means a few percent here and there are debated.

Let me guess. The report says some but less than consensus.

Oh that's not how this happened at all.

Most people, who weren't in the science, chose to believe the growing amount of scientists until all the world's scientists agreed that it was real and that man's industrialization is exacerbating it to the point that it very much stands out in history.

- It was American conservatives who defaulted into disbelieving Global Warming because Gore was a liberal.

- They then defaulted to Global Warming being a "liberal hoax" when the Obama Administration officially agreed with the growing consensus of the world's scientists.

- And to attach on to this theme of irrationality among the conservative faithful, Trump actually tried to push the idea that Global Warming was Chinese hoax!

- And now the Trump Administration continues to play the political game, in which his constituents have prove to want, by declaring that the report is simply "inaccurate."

**** you in the butt hole science!

So, as far as an actual debate, I think that conservatives, generally, have chosen for years to sit it out. These are yesteryear's people who refused to believe that the sun did not revolve around the earth as God apparently said. They now look for ways within their political partisan game to oppose "the left" in order to find ways where they can maybe be correct about at least something along the way.

 

[Lord of Planar]

has anyone read it. Seems to say man made climate change is real. What do you think?

is this just more sensationalism by the global warming alarmists

or

the reality of our future

There is a human element, but what about the shades of grey between your only two responses?

Sorry. I cannot vote either way.

 

[Rogue Valley]

has anyone read it. Seems to say man made climate change is real. What do you think?

is this just more sensationalism by the global warming alarmists

or

the reality of our future

Your poll sucks. Why couldn't you just provide honest options?

 

[ecofarm]

Oh that's not how this happened at all.

Most people, who weren't in the science, chose to believe the growing amount of scientists until all the world's scientists agreed that it was real and that man's industrialization is exacerbating it to the point that it very much stands out in history.

- It was American conservatives who defaulted into disbelieving Global Warming because Gore was a liberal.

- They then defaulted to Global Warming being a "liberal hoax" when the Obama Administration officially agreed with the growing consensus of the world's scientists.

- And to attach on to this theme of irrationality among the conservative faithful, Trump actually tried to push the idea that Global Warming was Chinese hoax!

- And now the Trump Administration continues to play the political game, in which his constituents have prove to want, by declaring that the report is simply "inaccurate."

**** you in the butt hole science!

So, as far as an actual debate, I think that conservatives, generally, have chosen for years to sit it out. These are yesteryear's people who refused to believe that the sun did not revolve around the earth as God apparently said. They now look for ways within their political partisan game to oppose "the left" in order to find ways where they can maybe be correct about at least something along the way.

I didn't mean to blame AGW believers (for lack of a better term) for climate denial.

I mean to blame them for the all-or-nothing frame of the debate. And they are damn well ****ing guilty. Don't even try to apologize for that ignorant cheerleading gone wrong.

I know because I'm the educated person. I'm the person with a formal education in the subject. And I watch dingbats misframe the debate, to science's dismay, all the ****ing time. Twenty years, since my Masters, I've watched benevolent idiots try to debate climate.

It's not all or nothing.

And that is, exactly, as observed by an actual expert, as idiots tried to get their tiny little partisan heads around it, what happened.

 

[Bodi]

has anyone read it. Seems to say man made climate change is real. What do you think?

is this just more sensationalism by the global warming alarmists

or

the reality of our future

Man Made Climate Change IS real... that is simply a fact. How much of the change is a direct result of man is the real question.

 

[Moderate Right]

has anyone read it. Seems to say man made climate change is real. What do you think?

is this just more sensationalism by the global warming alarmists

or

the reality of our future

The stupid part on the left is in thinking that if we do everything that the climate side wants us to do that global warming will just disappear. It won't. Global warming is real but it is sensationalized and exaggerated by the left. They've issued these same reports a few times now. We should already be dead now according to the first ones that came out and we're not. While we can make a dent in climate change we can't stop it. It will continue no matter what we do. You can't fight mother nature. It is erroneous to think we are the ones completely responsible for it and if we just mend our ways, global warming will just disappear.

 

[MSgt]

I didn't mean to blame AGW believers (for lack of a better term) for climate denial.

I mean to blame them for the all-or-nothing frame of the debate. And they are damn well ****ing guilty. Don't even try to apologize for that ignorant cheerleading gone wrong.

I know because I'm the educated person. I'm the person with a formal education in the subject. And I watch dingbats misframe the debate, to science's dismay, all the ****ing time. Twenty years, since my Masters, I've watched benevolent idiots try to debate climate.

It's not all or nothing.

And that is, exactly, as observed by an actual expert, as idiots tried to get their tiny little partisan heads around it, what happened.

Oh, the zero-sum game that has been applied to absolutely everything anymore.

 

[ecofarm]

Oh, the zero-sum game that has been applied to absolutely everything anymore.

I think if the debate had been framed in a way that recognized natural processes and the background history, we wouldn't have this all or nothing debate today. The sooner we get past 'yes or no' and to 'how much, where', the sooner we make productive adjustments.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

has anyone read it. Seems to say man made climate change is real. What do you think?

is this just more sensationalism by the global warming alarmists

or

the reality of our future

English your second language?

 

[Mr Person]

I think if the debate had been framed in a way that recognized natural processes and the background history, we wouldn't have this all or nothing debate today. The sooner we get past 'yes or no' and to 'how much, where', the sooner we make productive adjustments.

I suspect you're both right, in a way.

Yes, the actual findings were often distorted by the media and thus people who based their opinions solely on what they gleaned from various media sources. It's the same damn thing that happens every time a study in any field of science is reported on. It's as if the journalists don't even bother to consult with someone in the field half the time. The image presented is that the people studying these things don't know what they're talking about - coffee is GOOD; wait, no, it's BAD; wait maybe it's kind of OK - when really the problem is that the articles/reports on the various studies gloss over caveats, oversimplify everything, and basically muck the whole thing up. (It also often happens with articles about what exactly a court decision means and why it played out the way it did). And when that happens, it becomes easy for someone who doesn't bother to dig deeply into a subject to conclude that it's all bunk (or in situations like this, also happens to lack necessary education/training to understand what they're seeing when they dig).

That said.... MSgt is absolutely right that just about any subject that politics touches in some way gets boiled down to all-or-nothing. Either you want open borders or you think Trump wants to exterminate immigrants. Either tax cuts will sweep us into a glorious future or they will do absolutely nothing at all ever. Etc. It's been building for a long time now. So I suspect that there is a pretty high chance that even if reports on climate science were meticulous and exquisitely detailed, explaining every last caveat/assumption/etc and the reason for them, it would still get boiled down to all-or-nothing for political purposes.

 

[ecofarm]

That said.... MSgt is absolutely right that just about any subject that politics touches in some way gets boiled down to all-or-nothing. Either you want open borders or you think Trump wants to exterminate immigrants. Either tax cuts will sweep us into a glorious future or they will do absolutely nothing at all ever. Etc. It's been building for a long time now. So I suspect that there is a pretty high chance that even if reports on climate science were meticulous and exquisitely detailed, explaining every last caveat/assumption/etc and the reason for them, it would still get boiled down to all-or-nothing for political purposes.

That's what happened with climate change. My point is the pro action crowd did as much to create the situation by failing to provide robust arguments. Given the one making the claim gets to set parameters, I'd say most of the blame is on them. Idiots misconstrued poorly constructed, short sighted, talking point, narrow, truncated arguments. Blame the idiots? I guess, but where does that get us.

 

[concernedpuma]

Man Made Climate Change IS real... that is simply a fact. How much of the change is a direct result of man is the real question.

The real question is, can we afford it?
Regards,
CP

 

[Bodi]

The real question is, can we afford it?
Regards,
CP

Yep...

 

[Jack Fabulous]

I think if the debate had been framed in a way that recognized natural processes and the background history, we wouldn't have this all or nothing debate today. The sooner we get past 'yes or no' and to 'how much, where', the sooner we make productive adjustments.

How much damage do you think putting forth Cap and Trade as a "solution" did/does?

 

[uptower]

The stupid part on the left is in thinking that if we do everything that the climate side wants us to do that global warming will just disappear. It won't. Global warming is real but it is sensationalized and exaggerated by the left. They've issued these same reports a few times now. We should already be dead now according to the first ones that came out and we're not. While we can make a dent in climate change we can't stop it. It will continue no matter what we do. You can't fight mother nature. It is erroneous to think we are the ones completely responsible for it and if we just mend our ways, global warming will just disappear.

Then let's settle for at least mitigating its effects and in the process reducing pollution anyway because that will make the world (including us) healthier. Fair?

 

[MSgt]

I think if the debate had been framed in a way that recognized natural processes and the background history, we wouldn't have this all or nothing debate today. The sooner we get past 'yes or no' and to 'how much, where', the sooner we make productive adjustments.

I don't know about that. "It exists," was pretty much the only argument that was needed for conservatives to dismiss Gore, based entirely on him being a Liberal. And with Obama being the President when the world's scientists began developing their consensus, conservatives simply dug in to reject.

I mean, this latest report from our own government received an "I don't believe it" from the President of the United States; and this was based entirely on the political habit to oppose. In the very same address to the reporter, he also declared that we are the "cleanest that we have ever been" and that other countries are dirty. So, apparently, he does believe it. He just wants to keep the stubborn political game of opposition going for his constituents. And this goes right back to a collectively conscience decision to oppose a liberal in Gore.

 

[ecofarm]

How much damage do you think putting forth Cap and Trade as a "solution" did/does?

As I prefer market based solutions over command and control, I support cap and trade initiatives. I can't be against all forms of environmental regulations or damage will not be mitigated.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Yes its real.

What exactly is real, do you think?

What do you expect to happen?

 

[ecofarm]

What exactly is real, do you think?

What do you expect to happen?

I'll tell ya this... it's more real than blue font on an anonymous forum.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I'll tell ya this... it's more real than blue font on an anonymous forum.

So,

What exactly is real, do you think?

What do you expect to happen?