Climate change has run it's course...

Rob Allen

Active Member
#3
"Climate change has run it's course..."

Yeah, because the climate has stopped changing . . .
Read the article. It has nothing to do with actual climate change. It's saying climate change as a political issue is dead.
Why is it dead? Because the climate scientists pushing it were using very bad models and telling people how bad they are based on their false information.
Yes a model with predictions 40% off are very bad. In short all the stuff we have been warned about for the last 10 years was BS.

The net result of making dire predictions based on very bad science? People don't care about what you say! Therefore climate change as a political issue is dead.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#5
I really hope that the environmental activist community pays very close attention to this because lots of environmental issues are very important but being a doomsdayer using sketchy science turns people off... yes i see the irony of me saying that.
 

The T.O. Show

Buenos Hatches Ese
#6
Hmmmm, I'm not sure I buy this.... I believe the author wishes it was "dead" but judging by the reaction to Trump's decision to back out of the Paris Climate Accord, I don't think we've seen the end of it. The polling on that decision was terrible, and his overall approval numbers confirmed it. Internationally that was probably the least popular thing he's done so far. I guess we'll find out come election time, but I seriously doubt that climate change is no longer a relevant political issue. AGW is only a piece of the puzzle here, and the political relevance of energy alternatives almost doesn't even matter if you believe in it or not. You can't tie your economy to a finite resource and oppose it's alternatives forever. These chickens are going to come home to roost and there really aren't two ways about it. Maybe not in any of our lifetimes, but it will happen. It's going to run out eventually, and the folks who can see past the next election cycle are trying to position this country to be prepared for that. I think most voters recognize that.
 
Last edited:

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
#7
Hmmmm, I'm not sure I buy this.... I believe the author wishes it was "dead" but judging by the reaction to Trump's decision to back out of the Paris Climate Accord, I don't think we've seen the end of it. The polling on that decision was terrible, and his overall approval numbers confirmed it. Internationally that was probably the least popular thing he's done so far. I guess we'll find out come election time, but I seriously doubt that climate change is no longer a relevant political issue. AGW is only a piece of the puzzle here, and the political relevance of energy alternatives almost doesn't even matter if you believe in it or not. You can't tie your economy to a finite resource and oppose it's alternatives forever. These chickens are going to come home to roost and there really aren't two ways about it. Maybe not in any of our lifetimes, but it will happen. It's going to run out eventually, and the folks who can see past the next election cycle are trying to position this country to be prepared for that. I think most voters recognize that.
I agree with most everything here except your faith in the electorate. I'm having a hard time sharing your optimism in that regard. The urban/ rural divide is so pronounced anymore and we really don't communicate with each other. Throw in the power of social media and post fairness doctrine cable news to reinforce bias and you have an emotionally charged and thoughtless electorate. Facts seem to matter so little to those who can get alternative facts that reinforce the worst of their emotions.

After watching the Stanley Cup playoffs last night , I think that we need a big national post game handshake after the mid terms. Something tells me that there will not be that level of sportsmanship or even basic dignity though.

Go Sox,
cds
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#8
Hmmmm, I'm not sure I buy this.... I believe the author wishes it was "dead" but judging by the reaction to Trump's decision to back out of the Paris Climate Accord, I don't think we've seen the end of it. The polling on that decision was terrible, and his overall approval numbers confirmed it. Internationally that was probably the least popular thing he's done so far. I guess we'll find out come election time, but I seriously doubt that climate change is no longer a relevant political issue. AGW is only a piece of the puzzle here, and the political relevance of energy alternatives almost doesn't even matter if you believe in it or not. You can't tie your economy to a finite resource and oppose it's alternatives forever. These chickens are going to come home to roost and there really aren't two ways about it. Maybe not in any of our lifetimes, but it will happen. It's going to run out eventually, and the folks who can see past the next election cycle are trying to position this country to be prepared for that. I think most voters recognize that.
I don't think there is any opposition to alternative energy sources within the general voting population. Where we need more interest in renewable is industry we need people generating these types of energy for a profit on their own. The best solution for just about every problem is freedom and the free market.
 

The T.O. Show

Buenos Hatches Ese
#9
I don't think there is any opposition to alternative energy sources within the general voting population. Where we need more interest in renewable is industry we need people generating these types of energy for a profit on their own. The best solution for just about every problem is freedom and the free market.
Then why does our government subsidize fossil fuel production?

I have to disagree that there isn't opposition. We've had numerous discussions here where folks flat out said they don't want wind and solar power because it's ugly, kills birds, or whatever else. And I don't see how anyone can support pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement while saying they aren't opposed to alternative energy sources. The entire thing is based on the goal of reducing emissions and our dependency on fossil fuels by divesting from it's production and investing in alternatives. I didn't see any of Trump's base crying foul when he did that, so I think there's a pretty good chunk of Americans who are against it. "Green" initiatives are always met with opposition.
 

The T.O. Show

Buenos Hatches Ese
#10
I agree with most everything here except your faith in the electorate. I'm having a hard time sharing your optimism in that regard. The urban/ rural divide is so pronounced anymore and we really don't communicate with each other. Throw in the power of social media and post fairness doctrine cable news to reinforce bias and you have an emotionally charged and thoughtless electorate. Facts seem to matter so little to those who can get alternative facts that reinforce the worst of their emotions.

After watching the Stanley Cup playoffs last night , I think that we need a big national post game handshake after the mid terms. Something tells me that there will not be that level of sportsmanship or even basic dignity though.

Go Sox,
cds
I hear that. I don't exactly have a lot of faith in them either. Just making an observation that the polling showed the decision to back out of Paris was largely frowned upon. But who knows if that will translate to votes. I think the timing will probably work against the Trump administration though. That's going to take effect in November of 2020, right when Trump is trying to get reelected. I presume the whole world is going to be talking about the negative impact of that decision right as Americans are going to the polls. Who knows...
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
#11
I strongly disagree with Mr. Show and Mr. Sullivan. I am one of your "them" and I honestly believe you do not understand the science involved in aGW. All proxy scientific studies (we can't go back in time so proxy is what we have, nothing more or less) have demonstrated that CO2 emission follows temp increases, proxy's say "always". If you understand that you will "know" CO2 is the result, not the cause. The Paris agreement remains an agreement though the US is no longer a promisor. The US has reduced it's CO2 emissions notably but global emissions continue to rise. Reducing CO2 emission will never happen should human populations increase. I believe human life is of higher value than monkey life. If your mind is challenged, think harder!

I also resent the thought that anyone who disagrees with you regarding this is somehow inferior or too stupid to understand the science! And if your belief is better than my belief, in your mind, we will never agree.

When you believe rural = stupid while urban = something better, then you have crossed the line that confirms your ignorance.

Quote from Mr. Show, "That's going to take effect in November of 2020, right when Trump is trying to get reelected. I presume the whole world is going to be talking about the negative impact of that decision right as Americans are going to the polls. Who knows..." It's likely you're 100% wrong.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#12
Then why does our government subsidize fossil fuel production?

because for good or bad it is the key to our economy and the economy is the key to everything else

I have to disagree that there isn't opposition. We've had numerous discussions here where folks flat out said they don't want wind and solar power because it's ugly, kills birds, or whatever else. And I don't see how anyone can support pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement while saying they aren't opposed to alternative energy sources. The entire thing is based on the goal of reducing emissions and our dependency on fossil fuels by divesting from it's production and investing in alternatives. I didn't see any of Trump's base crying foul when he did that, so I think there's a pretty good chunk of Americans who are against it. "Green" initiatives are always met with opposition.

my primary oppositions to the Paris Agreement is that I extremely strongly oppose giving other countries any type of control over the USA. ANY kind of authority.. as in zero zilch nada.. ESPECIALLY the French who owe us deeply as does the rest of Europe. They have what they have because we pay for their defense.

second reason the science is very bad.. recent papers show that their climate model is off by 40% that is to say almost half..

solar and wind have not shown themselves to be environmentally friendly just like fossil fuels

The biggest reductions of greenhouse gasses has come from conversion from coal to natural gas and that natural gas has come from fracking aka destroying drinking water.

The best solution is for people to generate their own energy for that to happen we need industry to make it affordable.
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
#13
Electricity, funny how we need it. We're gonna get it, that's for sure, and I'd hope the African continent will soon enjoy the benefits, the far north of Russia too. Iceland has geothermal. Humans discovered electricity and found ways to make life easier, to deny that to other humans is simply unacceptable. Cost/Benefit is the only thing that matters. Solar and wind are poor candidates for dependable power. We have nuclear and hydro which work but create other problems. Storage is the underlying issue. Batteries have useful lives and disposing or re-cycling of them is very environmentally unfriendly. Hope you guys who seem to know the truth have this all figured out, I'm pretty certain you don't!

CO2 is a fundamental necessity for life on this planet, 10x more will help the plant thrive.
 

The T.O. Show

Buenos Hatches Ese
#14
When you believe rural = stupid while urban = something better, then you have crossed the line that confirms your ignorance.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't saying rural people are stupid. He said there is an increasing divide causing people to act on their emotions, which is pretty obviously true nowadays.


Quote from Mr. Show, "That's going to take effect in November of 2020, right when Trump is trying to get reelected. I presume the whole world is going to be talking about the negative impact of that decision right as Americans are going to the polls. Who knows..." It's likely you're 100% wrong
How so? I said "who knows" to indicate that I can't predict the future. Just spitballing ideas here. But given how unpopular the decision was here and abroad, it doesn't seem that far fetched to say that when the issue comes back around in 2020 the electorate is going to feel the same way.

You still aren't addressing the whole concept of fossil fuels being a limited resource. You've made your position on AGW crystal clear so let's think beyond that. Do you think it's wise to isolate ourselves and as one of the only world powers who won't make alternative energy sources a top priority over the next century?
 

The T.O. Show

Buenos Hatches Ese
#15
my primary oppositions to the Paris Agreement is that I extremely strongly oppose giving other countries any type of control over the USA.
It's self regulating though. We set our own targets and try to achieve them. No one is telling us what we have to do. And if that was the concern then why wouldn't the Trump administration try to negotiate those targets differently instead of flat out pulling the plug?
 

Latest posts