Does the Reality of Global Warming Burn Your Arse?

Which are?

 

Is money the ONLY thing conservatives use to measure values in life?

 

If you conclude before you try that you're doomed to fail, then you're right.

 

You are wrong on all counts. In the past decade world temperature records have been broken almost every year world wide. Where I live now the temperature almost never reached 100 degrees. Now it reaches 110 at times and fluctuates between 100 & 105 for weeks at a time. Watch the news and you'll see reports of people dying from extreme heat in places that was unheard of before. If you really think the last two decades have seen no warming, either you're seriously uninformed or never watch the news, or both. I would also suggest you take a look at the climate records of your own home location & see how global warming is affecting it. Also, did you hear that the Pacific Ocean waters off the coast of California are now registering 80 degrees, the hottest ever recorded? How do you think that's going to affect aquatic life there? Open your mind!

 

The standard of living is the most important metric.

 

Where are these reports of people dying from the heat ?? It’s an established fact that more people die from cold than heat.

Do your homework and stay away from the fake alarmist websites.

 

What is truly stupid is to reduce economic growth for no benefit.

 

Do you realize that your posts contain no points and, therefore, no substance?

What do those things you mention have to do with this topic? You mentioned, I believe, the "Roman Warming Period". Well... what about it? And what interest would scientist have in starving oil exporting countries?

And this is what you get from all Science denialists: they have no point. And you yourself won't make one. Because the only thing science denialists do is hop into anti-science websites and grab whatever is there. But they don't have a point either. So you're left on your own. And you don't know enough to make one.

If you have a point, make your point. Don't just throw crap in there without stating the relevance and leave it to rational people to "fill in the blanks". That's how science denialism works. But it's not how rational debates work.

 

The irony is dripping off the above. Too funny.

 

A quote from a few years ago:

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

What is he actually saying in that last highlighted part? He's saying this: "We don't have to convince people how great the snake-oil is anymore. A critical mass already believes in it and the rest will follow along. Doubting voices will have no effect. Our job now is collecting money which was our goal in the first place."

 

Fake news. Edenhoffer never said that.

 

This quote can be found on a lot of different sites. Why do you claim it is fake? Is there any evidence that it is fake?

 

Because he never said it. The quote is found on several websites because they all use Google Translate to translate a few sentences out of context. What he was saying is that current climate policy (which is essentially none) is effectively a wealth redistribution scheme in and of itself driven by the economics of fossil fuel exchange and that this wealth redistribution scheme would end as a consequence of proposed climate policies. Note, he was not saying that proposed climate policies should be enacted as a means for wealth redistribution. He was saying the exact opposite. That is, although the primary goal of proposed climate policies is to protect the environment, the secondary and unintentional side effect would be to end one wealth redistribution scheme which he saw as a positive. If you don't think fossil fuel exchanges are a wealth redistribution scheme then you definitely have a beef with his argument. But, that in no ways takes away from the fact that he never said wealth redistribution was a goal of proposed climate policies nor does it invalidate his noble intention of wanting to eliminate wealth redistribution schemes. It just means that his method to end one won't actually work.

 

If you really believe that, then you have my sympathies.

 

Several deaths in London, England in either 2017 or 2016, were attributed to record heat. The same happened in several other countries. Global Warming will become THE issue facing humanity over the next few decades, and their history writers will not be kind to our generation for our inaction.

 

How do liberals aware of the intricacy of daily living, with all its complex web of interlocking issues, each having very real but often poorly understood impacts on many others, work with conservatives who only see one or two issues and even those in the simplest black & white terms? It's a real challenge.

 

You are not in favor of increasing the global standard of living ??

 

Nice command of the facts there ?? Who were these people and specifically what was the cause of death ?? Did they have air conditioning ?? What actions should be taken, what is the goal in terms of CO2 emission reduction, and how would that be politically possible ??

 

How do illiberals buy into the global warming alarmism with virtually no understanding of the issue ??

 

No understanding of the issue on whose part? Scientists are in about 98% agreement that Global Warming is a growing danger to humanity & other forms of life on Earth. It's the "illiberals" who refuse to educate themselves on the issue or face reality or deal with it constructively. For example, Trump and his EPA appointee both refuse to even discuss the latest scientific findings--refuse to even consider them. Plus, they are killing steps already taken by previous administrations to begin dealing with it. That's not simply ignorance. That's destructive intent coupled with ignorance, and should be criminal.

 

Yes, that is what he was saying. Whether he agreed with it or not is irrelevant. He was accurately describing what the climate change movement has always been about. Several other people involved in it have admitted the same thing in so many words. I can supply other quotes.

 

I think you missed the point. Edenhoffer wasn't saying that climate policies are wealth redistribution schemes. He was saying the lack a concerted climate policy is itself form of wealth redistribution.

And yes, I'm sure you can find other quotes. I bet you can even find quotes that are real and that aren't taken out context to support your position. But, do those handful of quotes from a few loose canons outweigh the more measured and rational quotes from the rest of the scientific community? If you truly believe they do then you need to present tens of thousands of quotes from thousands of reputable scientists to make your point.

But, if still believe that cherry-picking onesie-twosie quotes is an effective way of tearing down a position then you'll have no problem if I play the same game right? But, fair warning, it's going to be way more fun for me finding ridiculous denier quotes to tear down your position than it is for you to find quotes to tear down mine. I'm just saying...

And ya know the irony? I don't even agree with Edenhoffer's argument that the lack of a concerted climate policy is itself a wealth redistribution scheme. In fact, I think it's a ridiculous argument.

 

So, you still don't believe the quote is real, but you have your own interpretation of what he meant by it. Interesting.
Quotes by definition are out of context, but they can be helpful in understanding what is going on behind all those climate alarmist stories in the MSM.

Here is another illuminating one:

Quote by Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”

 

Yeah, okay. What's your point? That we shouldn't transform our economic development model from one that depends on fossil fuel to one that doesn't?

 

When a viable alternative to fossil fuel becomes available we won't have to transform our economic model in order to switch to it. Free market economics will jump at it. This is not the "transformation" people like Figueres is referring to.