More Americans and most Republicans now believe in climate change

Amazing? Really? Remember, Bluesguy, many of these 'chicken-little' morons who are so certain that "global warming" is going to destroy the whole damned planet are the same ones who not only elected, but re-elected a total nothingness like Barack Obama!

Anyone who would consciously do that is capable of doing anything -- except acknowledging the FACT that the planet has warmed by 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 100 years!

Hint: "Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces,temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 2 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (PDF))."

What I have been waiting to hear from them is how charging enormously higher utility and power rates for anything remotely associated with energy, or "global warming" is going to lower the Earth's temperature by 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the NEXT 100 years!

...Oh, and, for them to be able to PROVE IT!

 

Agreed and if we can distinguish the types of warming events, that would be a great thing too...

 

Agreed. Are there any solutions to this problem that you are in favor of?

 

You have been misled. Fake Science has always been a serious problem. Now it has been exposed.

"This was a year for splashy headlines about retractions, after some much-ballyhooed findings were pulled. Some prominent scientists each retracted multiple papers in 2015. And, of course, the last 12 months saw more and more cases of faked peer review. Here, in no particular order, are our picks for the top 10 retraction stories of 2015."
THE SCIENTIST, The Top 10 Retractions of 2015, A look at this year’s most memorable retractions, By Retraction Watch | December 23, 2015.
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44895/title/The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2015/

 

And Legal couldn't do it. Everyone act shocked now.

 

Fake Science has gone viral.

 

Dozens. The most immediate of which is to recognize the cost associated with greenhouse gas emissions and to adjust that cost into the pricing accordingly. CO2 tax credits for companies being another. And using the revenues from those to fund carbon capture, battery, and renewable technology advancements.

As to some of the others, I've linked a study with roughly a dozen natural based solutions (like increasing the size of certain wetlands) that could, in theory, account for roughly a third of the CO2 reductions needed. I could try to track that down for you, if you like.

 

Although China has large countrywide emissions, its per capita carbon dioxide emissions are still lower than those of some other developed and developing countries. In 2007, China's per-capita emissions were 5.1 tons per person per year, compared to 19.4 in the U.S

 

Appreciated, but I'll take your claim at face value. When can I expect to see China and India progressing on these issues as America has for some time? Or are the Americans the only group being asked to solve GW?

 

Although China has large countrywide emissions, its per capita carbon dioxide emissions are still lower than those of some other developed and developing countries. In 2007, China's per-capita emissions were 5.1 tons per person per year, compared to 19.4 in the U.S

 

So you are saying it's up to America and no one else?

 

Heck they can't even tell us what is the optimum temperature of the plant and for all the species that occupy it but what we do know warmer is better than colder.

 

They put out twice as much as we do producing products for us not their own citizens, it's not a matter of per capita.

 

Train? Lemme guess, a wind powered train. Am I right? Anyone who uses fossil fuels or pollutes is a hypocrite if they whine about global warming.

An old girlfriend of mine was a delegate for Sanders at the convention and she’s a hard core global warming nut. Here’s the thing, she flies all over the world and when I ask her how big her carbon footprint is she justifies it, while she flies around the globe she wants me to ride a bicycle to work.

 

I have never "denied" global warming or climate change. I have always denied mankind causing it. I am of the belief that oil is a gift from God. Yes we need to be stewards of the earth but damn this religious fervor of the GW crowd is crazy.

If you believe mankind is the cause of GW, and that mankind can fix the problem; then you must believe we can control climate! Well hell! Let's control it then! What are we waiting on?

 

Tell me about it

The older uneducated American conspiracy believer

 

How did you get that out of what he posted?

 

Because Australia has anything to add...pfft!

 

Interesting that most major religions support the concept of AGW. and have issued statements supporting action

https://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/religious-statements-on-climate-change/

 

I have always said that Climate Change is a fact. Anyone disagreeing with that hasn't researched the earths climate history.
The problem is that many, many studies by well no Scientists and Scientific Groups believe we as humans are not the number 1 cause of past and present changes.

Instead of fighting over the cause and passing laws that will likely only change the climate minimally at best over the next 100 years; we need to invest in changes that help us deal with it. Such as not rebuilding in coastal areas prone to flooding, tornadoes, fire, mud slides, and other frequent and costly natural disasters. If I were Insurance Companies I would stop insuring these homes and commercial buildings.

Perhaps that would force people to use there insurance proceeds to rebuild in safer areas. More research should be done on better building materials, and low cost power. Electric lines should go underground. The cost would be offset by less cost to repair the electric grid. So much more along these lines can be done.

 

Pretty amusing claim since I can point to 13 failed long term predictions your moronic scientists have made and you can't point a single one they did make that came true.

And you claim we are the uneducated ones. LOL I bet you go to fortune tellers as well.

 

No
Perhaps you can share how you reached this interpretation of what i wrote

 

P hacking is a faulty data analysis method that can inflate the significance of patterns in data, but it is quite known. Also, P hacking has occurred, but it is usually caught in the peer review process. Another way to combat these faulty data analysis methods is through replication. This is one reason why replication is a key part of the scientific process. Which articles in climate research have P hacking issues? Claiming this is problem is true, but to say that it has occurred in an entire field, you have no evidence of this. This seems like a case of someone with a little information can come up with odd conspiracies of many studies.

 

No. Prove your assertion that scientists jump to conclusions to obtain funding.

 

Scientific theories never become "fact". They can become widely and even universally accepted, but never "fact".

You seem to think that believing in science puts me on the left. It doesn't. I'm not "on the left".

There is a big distinction between accepting the scientific consensus that most climate warming is man-made (which I do) and agreeing on how to address that scientific consensus. A lot of deniers don't like the policies that have been implemented or suggested. Rather than offer alternatives, they attack the science. That is just lazy and intellectually dishonest. It is a case of burying your head in the sand.