This US summer is 'what global warming looks like'

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lynnvinc said:
.

And it’s totally pathetic that people of other countries are sort of waiting around for Americans to lead the way, when it seems we don’t have any plan to do so, but would (it seems to me) rather burn our money out on our front lawns like so many fall leaves than lift a finger to reduce. And it’s totally pathetic for them (and us) not to reduce much when this is not a “multilaterial” disarmament issue, but a “unilateral” issue: Each country, each household, each person needs to reduce their own GHGs whether or not others are doing likewise.
Click to expand...
I guess I’ll ask - why?

No one can say with any degree of certainty that doing so would have any effect on the current “warming” - or if doubling the amount of GHGs would have any effect either.
 
SamH said:
I guess I’ll ask - why?

No one can say with any degree of certainty that doing so would have any effect on the current “warming” - or if doubling the amount of GHGs would have any effect either.
Click to expand...
You’re probably right – it would just be a drop in the bucket. But I think it would please God that we are trying to do something. Like some kid putting a penny in the collection plate, or the widow who gave her 3 coins.

We can say a little prayer each time we do some little deed, like taking reusable bags for shopping – offer it up to God.

My God I offer you this day, all I think and do and say, to unite it with what on earth was done by Jesus Christ, Thy son.

Mother Teresa used to say, it doesn’t matter how much or how little you do, because your love makes it infinite.
 
lynnvinc said:
You’re probably right – it would just be a drop in the bucket. But I think it would please God that we are trying to do something. Like some kid putting a penny in the collection plate, or the widow who gave her 3 coins.

.
Click to expand...
No, it would be like if the widow put her 3 coins in they were spent in wine and song instead of helping the poor.

Never mistake motion for action.
 
lynnvinc said:
I think you may have a point. I don’t have the stats, but it’s possible a larger portion of Americans are doing something to mitigate CC. Of course, we have a much greater carbon footprint per capita from which to cut. And our GHGs we need to cut are also in the products we buy from abroad, like China (we buy it, we break it).

However, it’s sort of sad and pathetic that we just aren’t doing nearly enough by way of energy/resource efficiency/conservation that could reduce our American GHGs by 50%, even 75% without lowering living standards or productivity.

.
Click to expand...
It may be observed that the U.S. consumption of energy exactly parallels the U.S. contribution to the goods produced in the world. a 50% or 75% drop in overall energy use would have an enormous effect on the production of the products people want and need.

Row crops, for example, require enormous energy (name removed by moderator)uts in terms of fuel, energy required to manufacture machines, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers. Cut all that energy expenditure in half or by 75%and I can pretty well guarantee that food production would drop by that amount, and starvation would result for many; penury for others.

That’s not to say that individuals shouldn’t attempt to conserve energy in sensible ways, either as a penitential act or in order to save money. But we really do have to be careful about how we frame our thinking about why we’re doing it, because idealistic goals can pointlessly result in extreme misery for mankind.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It may be observed that the U.S. consumption of energy exactly parallels the U.S. contribution to the goods produced in the world. a 50% or 75% drop in overall energy use would have an enormous effect on the production of the products people want and need.

Row crops, for example, require enormous energy (name removed by moderator)uts in terms of fuel, energy required to manufacture machines, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers. Cut all that energy expenditure in half or by 75%and I can pretty well guarantee that food production would drop by that amount, and starvation would result for many; penury for others.

That’s not to say that individuals shouldn’t attempt to conserve energy in sensible ways, either as a penitential act or in order to save money. But we really do have to be careful about how we frame our thinking about why we’re doing it, because idealistic goals can pointlessly result in extreme misery for mankind.
Click to expand...
One factor in this whole debate is the theory of “peak oil,” which is where a lot of the conservation mentality came from. There is no such thing. In fact, we now have the technology to draw out untold reserves of shale oil which changes the geopolitical structure of the WORLD, especially removing power from the Middle East. Most Americans have no idea what is taking place but it is a revolution in our energy supplies. If the greens can shut this down, we’re truly cutting ourselves off from energy independence and making ourselves slaves needlessly. There is an oil and gas boom going on and we should be celebrating this and looking forward to a new day of increased prosperity, but the doom and gloomers will continue to wring their hands and cry, “Global Warming!” like the propaganda echo machines that they are.
 
irishpatrick said:
Your personal perspective on what is “the right thing to do” is your view, and others are not required to hold to the same opinion. It is important to keep that in mind.
Click to expand...
Mine, JPII’s, and BXVI’s. And you’re right. No one is required to follow what any of us think, say, or suggest.

I would just hope and pray people would do the right thing, but I see all around me (not here at CAF) people so selfish, evil, self-absorbed, into abortion, crime (I’m a criminologist), trying to become rich by harming others, etc, that I’m thinking there is very very little hope we can solve this problem. If all the “good people” (church-going types) refuse to do their part, even tho it could save them $100s or $1000s to do so, it seems to me there is very very little hope at all getting the mediocre and bad people to do anything…to help this world at least, and perhaps for saving souls for heaven.

Some have suggested GW is part of the “end-times,” but I make no judgment on that, except to say it sort of seems fit, since I think the apocalypse is supposed to be brought on by our sinfulness. I hope it’s not the case that GW is part of the apocalypse, tho some scientists have said we could end all life on earth by continuing down our chosen path.

I hope everyone decides to do the right thing and stop harming and killing people thru (even tho their individual part and culpability may be infinitesimal) and in the other ways they do so. I hope and I pray. I’m no good as a “people person” to persuade anyone. No good at all; even my husband says I just turn people off. I hope and pray some more personable, convincing people would come to do the job, bec I’m not the person for it.
 
lynnvinc said:
Mine, JPII’s, and BXVI’s. And you’re right. No one is required to follow what any of us think, say, or suggest.

I would just hope and pray people would do the right thing, but I see all around me (not here at CAF) people so selfish, evil, self-absorbed, into abortion, crime (I’m a criminologist), trying to become rich by harming others, etc, that I’m thinking there is very very little hope we can solve this problem. If all the “good people” (church-going types) refuse to do their part, even tho it could save them $100s or $1000s to do so, it seems to me there is very very little hope at all getting the mediocre and bad people to do anything…to help this world at least, and perhaps for saving souls for heaven.

Some have suggested GW is part of the “end-times,” but I make no judgment on that, except to say it sort of seems fit, since I think the apocalypse is supposed to be brought on by our sinfulness. I hope it’s not the case that GW is part of the apocalypse, tho some scientists have said we could end all life on earth by continuing down our chosen path.

I hope everyone decides to do the right thing and stop harming and killing people thru (even tho their individual part and culpability may be infinitesimal) and in the other ways they do so. I hope and I pray. I’m no good as a “people person” to persuade anyone. ** No good at all; even my husband says I just turn people off. I hope and pray some more personable, convincing people would come to do the job, bec I’m not the person for it**.
Click to expand...
You may be the nicest person in the world, lynnevic, but on this one, you’re wrong. And therein lies the problem - you can’t recognize anything that disproves your certainty. That’s not science, but it fits with the AGW propaganda.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
You may be the nicest person in the world, lynnevic, but on this one, you’re wrong. And therein lies the problem - you can’t recognize anything that disproves your certainty. That’s not science, but it fits with the AGW propaganda.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the science has been in since 1995 at the .05 on the null (95% confidence) – which was not required by JPII and myself to understand we needed to do our parts and try and get others to do their parts. Just the opinion of many scientists that this could be a huge problem was enough for us back in 1990. Why risk human lives? It’s not worth it, esp when one can save money while saving lives.

The science since 1995 then has become ever more robust with many lines of proof. I’ve been following the science on ACC for over 22 years like a hawk. I don’t think there is any climate scientist now who doubts that ACC is real, except for one or two, who are Exxon/Koch funded – and even they admit ACC is real, but try to suggest it isn’t so bad as all the other 1000s of climate scientists suggest.

I’m just wondering where skeptics are getting their “science,” bec it just doesn’t jive with real science found in top tier science journals. I’ve also been in personal contact with several climate scientists, and I can vouch that they are sincere and honest people, suffering vicious attacks from the denialist industry, including death threats to themselves and their young children…a further and worse sin on top of the sin of refusing to mitigate harms to people.
 
It’s called statistics, and many people who are yelling about climate change don’t know any. Many of the records that we’re breaking this week were set in 1936, and they didn’t have global warming either. It was just hot. It’s summer and that can happen.
 
lynnvinc said:
Sorry, but the science has been in since 1995 at the .05 on the null (95% confidence) – which was not required by JPII and myself to understand we needed to do our parts and try and get others to do their parts. Just the opinion of many scientists that this could be a huge problem was enough for us back in 1990. Why risk human lives? It’s not worth it, esp when one can save money while saving lives.

The science since 1995 then has become ever more robust with many lines of proof. I’ve been following the science on ACC for over 22 years like a hawk. I don’t think there is any climate scientist now who doubts that ACC is real, except for one or two, who are Exxon/Koch funded – and even they admit ACC is real, but try to suggest it isn’t so bad as all the other 1000s of climate scientists suggest.

I’m just wondering where skeptics are getting their “science,” bec it just doesn’t jive with real science found in top tier science journals. I’ve also been in personal contact with several climate scientists, and I can vouch that they are sincere and honest people, suffering vicious attacks from the denialist industry, including death threats to themselves and their young children…a further and worse sin on top of the sin of refusing to mitigate harms to people.
Click to expand...
Being “sincere” and “honest” does not mean that they are doing real science. Please stop using the term “denialist” as if people who do not agree that AGW is real are somehow in denial. THAT is what I mean when I say that your own denial of any other possibilities is very off-putting.

“Vicious attacks from the denialist industry, including death threats to themselves and their young children.” Really? Prove it. But you can’t, because there is the real possibility that these supposed death threats are fictional, meant to throw suspicion onto innocent people who merely disagree on AGW.
 
iloveangels said:
It’s called statistics, and many people who are yelling about climate change don’t know any. Many of the records that we’re breaking this week were set in 1936, and they didn’t have global warming either. It was just hot. It’s summer and that can happen.
Click to expand...
:tsktsk:🤓
*
DENIALIST!*
 
iloveangels said:
Oh baloney. Most global warming enthusiasts have absolutely NO CLUE about the science and mathematics of weather and change. They’re a bunch of romantic bunglers. Give me a break.
Click to expand...
I know that. It’s frustrating to deal with them. What continually amazes me is that their idols Al Gore, Michael Moore, et al, do not live the kind of lifestyle they want their followers to live, and yet, they somehow get a pass. It’s like these folks have blinders on when it comes to this subject. They are confusing good stewardship of the earth, which all of us support, with feeling guilty for having caused the climate to change. It’s both hubris and guilt at the same time. All emotion, though. The very first fact they ignore is that science does not equal consensus. All science must be replicable and based on fact, not emotion.
 
I think the AP considers all Americans morons with short-term memories. Heck, maybe they are right. In any case, it hasn’t even been a couple of years when record cold winters had scientist (appeal to false authority) saying that it meant nothing. There were all over television global warming apologists explaining the difference between weather and climate and how we can base no conclusions upon weather. Now, we have this summer and the tune changes, with sides swapping talking points and re-cycling the same arguments.
 
iloveangels said:
Oh baloney. Most global warming enthusiasts have absolutely NO CLUE about the science and mathematics of weather and change. They’re a bunch of romantic bunglers. Give me a break.
Click to expand...
Yeah, just like these guys:

“2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, “It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.”[23] The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
 
If science is simply a consensus, then it is argumentum ad populum.
 
I know during that heat wave I may have wondered a few times whether or not it is the result of global warming. I was actually just thinking about this earlier tonight.
 
Just another day in paradise in south Orange County, CA. :tanning: Thank you Lord.

Not being part of the globe is a worry though.

Eternal “warming” scares me more - and I will vote accordingly.

Of course I grew up in Northern Illinois and went through “Nuclear Winter” as a kid. :winter::snowing: < Make it STOP!!

Let not your hearts be troubled. If the sky does fall on you … it will feel a lot like … space*.

** 100,000 times less than the impact of a Sta-Puft Marshmallow.*
 
Dawnia said:
I don’t know, but apparently they have slightly more scientific knowledge than the pro-global warming crowd. According to this study anyway - climatedepot.com/a/16037/Study-Global-warming-skeptics-as-knowledgeable-about-science-as-climate-change-believers
Click to expand...
Skeptics are as knowledgeable about science as ACC accepters are, but perhaps not as knowledgeable about climate science. I still prefer to go along with the basic science of the greenhouse effect and what actual climate scientists engaged in research and publishing in top tier peer-reviewed journals have to say – not what some dentist, partical physicist, or retired civil engineer has to say. One wouldn’t go to a dentist for brain surgery.

Also there is the arrogance factor. People with higher educations tend to think they know it all – not only their own narrow, specialized field.

I don’t know it all, tho I have a fairly good science background. When I have questions about ACC, I contact the top climate scientists directly and have been doing so for over 20 years, and they have been very helpful.

Also a much better site where top climate scientists can answer any of your doubts is realclimate.org . If the moderators don’t always answer, then other knowledgeable posters often do. Aside from that site and actual studies published in good science journals, other good sources for info and background on climate science are:
  • Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren; Hansen is the top climate scientist at NASA, and I’ve been in contact with him for years. A very good and decent person.
  • Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. He’s also a top climate science (he’s one who has received death threats, also death threats to his young daughter). His book not only givev good background about climate science, but also how the denialist industry has wrongly twisted the science to try and make it look like there is no ACC; but in each case real science has proven them wrong.
Both these books are very heavy reading, tho the authors strive to bring it down to layperson’s understanding. Since the issue is such an important one, it is worth reading these very carefully and striving to understand climate science, esp if one has doubts about it.

Climate Depot is not a good place to get climate science. It is funded by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which is funded by Scaife:

Richard Mellon Scaife (born July 3, 1932) is an American billionaire. Scaife owns and publishes the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. With $1.2 billion, Scaife, a principal heir to the Mellon banking, oil, and aluminum fortune…(from Wikipedia)

I’m not saying every oil billionaire is funding the climate change denial machine, but Scaife clearly is. Watch out also for anything funded by Exxon or the Koch brothers. They are all into profits without concern for destroying life on earth. Dangerous folks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top