Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[trish]

Obviously you haven't kept up Faldur. Independent investigators looked at those emails nearly two years ago and found nothing damning about them...except for the fact that they were pillaged by anti-science interests paying for a non-existent scandal. (Note too the difference between an email and a paper published in Nature). Shame on you still pushing that shit. But in your world I suppose cartoons pass for science and Jesus time-travels to make appearances in the Old Testament before he was born. And you call yourself a "sceptic."

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538

[Faldur]

And you call yourself a "sceptic."

Not a term I've ever used to describe myself. A "sceptic" as defined would not believe in a creator.

I'm a moderately intelligent individual who has looked at the issue and come to the determination that I'm being sold a bunch of hooey. I lived through the "coming ice age" scare of the 70's. And learned first hand how people attempt to manipulate science for political/monetary gain. As a great man once said.. "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

[trish]

I lived through the "coming ice age" scare of the 70's.

Nonsense again. A couple of articles in popular magazines do not science make. The majority of climate scientists in the 70's were already weighing the evidence in favor of warming. You suffer from a selective memory, because you in fact haven't examined the evidence and come to an objective determination. Your conclusion was determined by your ideology, namely "I don't want to pay taxes." I'm not asking you to pay taxes. Acknowledging that facts and doing something about them are two different things. You won't do either. (And yes, you have called yourself a climate "skeptic," and it still makes me laugh).


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538 __________________

[Ben]

All rigged by these paid liars .science can be bought

So, we shouldn't trust anyone? We shouldn't trust businesspeople? Or politicians? What about astrophysicists? I mean, was there a big bang that happened 13 billion years ago? What about evolution?
So, 98 percent of climate scientists are involved in some sort of conspiracy. Why? What's their incentive or motivation. I mean, oil companies have a much BIGGER incentive and motivation to DENY that it's happening. They've got, literally, trillions of dollars on the line. So, it's in their interest to really DENY the science of climate change.
And, too, what if the climate scientists are correct? Then what? I mean, science isn't speculation. But the general public, who aren't climate scientists, are speculating, are making guesses.
There are powerful interests that are threatened by climate science. Namely big oil. And, too, so-called free-marketeers. Because if the science is correct, well, they'll have to be a dramatic shift away from corporate state-capitalism. So, these right-wing free-marketeers are being incredibly rational. They're defending their own narrow interests. It's rational. They'll do whatever it takes to defend their economic model. Again, it's rational on their part.
Anyway, there are pluses and benefits to reducing pollution. And plus maybe we should conserve oil for future generations.
And, too, why are people hostile to conservation??????? I don't get it. What's wrong with reducing consumption?

[Stavros]

Ben, in 1997 the chief executive of BP at that time, John Browne (these days Lord Browne of Madingley) delivered a speech at Stanford in which he acknowledged the human role in climate change. He was pilloried by many at the time, yet Shell and the LA based firm Atlantic Richfield (which BP took over a few years later) followed BP's example. Exxon was the main antagonist, esp when Lee Raymond was CEO -BUT, I was once told that Exxon took an uncompromosing stance because if the human element in environmental change was accepted by Exxon as a fact, it would leave the company open to decades of litigation in the US by individuals and groups claiming that Exxon had 'admiited' ruining the environment =admitted liability. However hard to prove, its the kind of issue lawyers can spin for years and earn ridiculous amounts of $$$.

My hunch is that if you polled most of the employees of oil companies, most believe that climate change is generating global warming. In fact, the oil companies have done much more to reduce carbon emissions than other industries -because they can afford to. It is the power industry, and the staggering growth in carbon-spitting cars and poorly regulated industrial plants in China and India that are becoming more responsible for carbon emissions beyond our control.

Because this is a planetary issue, everyone has to be involved -people who deny climate change to me have a flat earth mentality: they have decided its rubbish so anything that advances the argument is, by definition, rubbish, or hooey as they used to say in the USA. No explanation for the glaciers in Switzerland that have melted, no attempt to think through the consequences of deforestation in the Amazon basin or Indonesia, no real explanation for the gradual disappearance of the Dead Sea; just a simple belief that God is in his heaven, and all is right with the world,and if only those New Age fundamentalists would go away we could live in peace, eat our grits in the mornin', go huntin' and fishin' in the afternoon, an watch movies at night. And, as you say, curbing emissions makes for a cleaner environment, nobody demands pollution as a right.

[fred41]

Because this is a planetary issue, everyone has to be involved -people who deny climate change to me have a flat earth mentality: they have decided its rubbish so anything that advances the argument is, by definition, rubbish, or hooey as they used to say in the USA. No explanation for the glaciers in Switzerland that have melted, no attempt to think through the consequences of deforestation in the Amazon basin or Indonesia, no real explanation for the gradual disappearance of the Dead Sea; just a simple belief that God is in his heaven, and all is right with the world,and if only those New Age fundamentalists would go away we could live in peace, eat our grits in the mornin', go huntin' and fishin' in the afternoon, an watch movies at night. And, as you say, curbing emissions makes for a cleaner environment, nobody demands pollution as a right.

I believe it may have more to do with the fact that some economies around the world, at present , barely seem to be hanging on by a thread...so people would be afraid to do anything that would (..maybe could) strangle it further. There is also the recognition that China, both an emerging economic giant and one of the worst polluters on the planet, will probably just laugh off any attempts to ever get it to comply . The question most likely to be asked then, would be:Why hamstring ones own economy, if everyone else isn't going to play by the same rules? (Other than some possibly disingenuous lip service).

[russtafa]

Nonsense again. A couple of articles in popular magazines do not science make. The majority of climate scientists in the 70's were already weighing the evidence in favor of warming. You suffer from a selective memory, because you in fact haven't examined the evidence and come to an objective determination. Your conclusion was determined by your ideology, namely "I don't want to pay taxes." I'm not asking you to pay taxes. Acknowledging that facts and doing something about them are two different things. You won't do either. (And yes, you have called yourself a climate "skeptic," and it still makes me laugh).


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538 __________________

Don't believe it.The global warming is the ruse to get people to pay more taxes,like Australia and New Zealand.

[Ben]

[Ben]

Don't believe it.The global warming is the ruse to get people to pay more taxes,like Australia and New Zealand.

When climate change accelerates taxes will skyrocket because, well, we'll have to clean up the disasters, as it were.
A stark [sort of] solution would be to increase taxes on corporations and the rich. And reduce taxes on middle and lower income earners. That's a simple policy shift/decision. (Look at Canada. Up there in Canada they've the G.S.T. Or the Goods and Services Tax. Instituted in 1991. It replaced the Manufactured Sales Tax. Or a Corporate Tax.
93 percent of Canadians were OPPOSED to it. Didn't matter. Popular opinion in a so-called democracy is totally irrelevant.
These tax policy shifts have been going on for over 30 years. It's quite simple. Shift taxes from the super-rich and rich and the corporate sector to the general population.
Again, this has been going on for 30 years. I mean, this is way before climate change became a big issue.
It is simply a Friedman/Hayek economic model that massively shifts wealth upwards. And, again, it has been going on for 30 years. And it'll continue to happen. Where the real gains are being made by 0.01 percent of the population... and a large segment of the population gets screwed.
Again, the whole notion of climate change as a plot to increase taxes on the general population doesn't really, I think, have any traction --
Again, because it has been going on for 30 years. I mean, take, say, public transit. When people PAY to use public transit, well, that's a tax. People get screwed. And they've always been screwed -- ha ha!

[fred41]

With all due respect to Ms. Appadurai...I believe the silent majority of the earth is busy scratching out a meager existence on this planet for themselves and their family...and trying not to die an early death from disease and strife before they even think about climate control. Nice speech though.