What is some viable proof of Global Warming?

[SearchingforPeace]

So you agree that global warming is happening but you oppose how it is being addressed?

Climate is always changing. Back in the 70s when I was a kid, we had a great global cooling scare.

I fully believe that humans can impact climate. To an extent.

I posted an article earlier this year from NASA scientists that pollution has a global cooling effect, especially around major cities and that their models had never included that. Cities themselves are heat islands, impacting the path of hurricanes and other storms.

I posted another article recently quoting Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann confirming that global warming largely stopped in 2001 (which is why there was so much effort by some scientists to massage the data).

The alarmism is a real problem. And mostly disingenuous.

Our air is much better than it was 40 years ago, which is a great positive. We should make continued efforts on that.

Other improvements are good.

But too many times we have had climate policy shaped by greedy folks.

Who funded the Sierra Club's campaign against coal? A natural gas developer.

A similar thing happened to ban CFCs back decades ago, as DuPont was losing its market share and so pushed a new and less efficient and more expensive refrigerant.

I love the idea of green energy. I hope we can move to a pollutionless world eventually.

But massive wealth transfers to the third world and hedge funds and others profiting.....not good. These are not things that need to be solved in a day or a year.

And limiting Western lives while China and others pollute without limit?????? No thank you

I find the structure of the world wide economic system to be more dangerous than climate change in the short run.....

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

[MENTION=25377]SearchingforPeace[/MENTION]

Okay. I can understand your complaints but I also don't see how you can extract the prevention and lowering of pollution from big business and money. I don't see that as feasible. As these major aspects of man-made pollution is through manufacturing, etc and it is happening on a global scale.

China...that is a delicate balance. China says the West has been polluting without regulation for years to get ahead and now that everyone is on board, they are forcing China to be regulated but it would hinder China from becoming more powerful. China complains that it isn't fair. Also, China's economy is growing so much and politically it sees this as control from the West, yadda yadda. (complex issue but nutshell version). But how to stop that? THAT would be a mess!

So all these things are tied together and yeah...good intentions can be used to back singular objectives that have nothing to do with the initial goal. You can piggyback. The pure of heart and those who aren't...well, you can't tell that difference because they all are fighting for the same end game, they just have different end objectives.

So, I get what you're saying...I just don't see a way around that as what you speak of is intention and that isn't as clear.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

[MENTION=25377]SearchingforPeace[/MENTION]

Okay. I can understand your complaints but I also don't see how you can extract the prevention and lowering of pollution from big business and money. I don't see that as feasible. As these major aspects of man-made pollution is through manufacturing, etc and it is happening on a global scale.

China...that is a delicate balance. China says the West has been polluting without regulation for years to get ahead and now that everyone is on board, they are forcing China to be regulated but it would hinder China from becoming more powerful. China complains that it isn't fair. Also, China's economy is growing so much and politically it sees this as control from the West, yadda yadda. (complex issue but nutshell version). But how to stop that? THAT would be a mess!

So all these things are tied together and yeah...good intentions can be used to back singular objectives that have nothing to do with the initial goal. You can piggyback. The pure of heart and those who aren't...well, you can't tell that difference because they all are fighting for the same end game, they just have different end objectives.

So, I get what you're saying...I just don't see a way around that as what you speak of is intention and that isn't as clear.

The key is to not fall into the hype and move in a reasonable manner.

I grew up in LA. We had smog alerts all the time and were not allowed to be on the playground. Today, smog alerts in LA are almost non existant.

More radical measures are usually tools for profit seeking.

One important change would be producing closer to home rather than in China and other countries with poor environmental controls. We would eliminate a lot of environmental costs from transportation. Plus it would fuel domestic employment, a win win. And stop the tax avoiding done by most corporations.

Nudging is better than authoritarianism. Caution is better than jumping on the next agenda pushed by profit-seekers.

We need to get away from consumerism as the fuel for the economy. We just need less stuff. Many of the agricultural changes can occur if we just stop subsidizing bad things.

We can use a fraction of the money spent on boondoggles and actually give the world sewers and clean water.

But with regulatory capture (especially at the the environmental agencies, just like the financial agencies), we need to be cautious.

Let's work towards preservation and protection and limiting pollution.

But saying we are all dead in a short time without radical change is just not based upon the science.....

 

[Poki]

[MENTION=25377]SearchingforPeace[/MENTION]

Okay. I can understand your complaints but I also don't see how you can extract the prevention and lowering of pollution from big business and money. I don't see that as feasible. As these major aspects of man-made pollution is through manufacturing, etc and it is happening on a global scale.

China...that is a delicate balance. China says the West has been polluting without regulation for years to get ahead and now that everyone is on board, they are forcing China to be regulated but it would hinder China from becoming more powerful. China complains that it isn't fair. Also, China's economy is growing so much and politically it sees this as control from the West, yadda yadda. (complex issue but nutshell version). But how to stop that? THAT would be a mess!

So all these things are tied together and yeah...good intentions can be used to back singular objectives that have nothing to do with the initial goal. You can piggyback. The pure of heart and those who aren't...well, you can't tell that difference because they all are fighting for the same end game, they just have different end objectives.

So, I get what you're saying...I just don't see a way around that as what you speak of is intention and that isn't as clear.

Its like big brother trying to protect little brother from life lessons.

How to fix...usa needs to share experiences and struggles...not give rules. We have learned alot about better ways that would help improve and grow every step of the way. These neex to be shared, not put rules inplace to stop and say deal with it

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Huff Post

Interesting take on climate change debate by a UC Berkeley scientist.

The number of climate change deniers in the US depends on what you mean by “denier”. I, for example, am not only convinced that global warming is real, and caused by humans, but I can make a compelling case that it is so, and I spend a substantial part of my time talking to those who don’t accept that. I don’t publicize the list of people I have convinced, but you would likely recognize some of the names.

On the other hand, I might be listed as a “climate change denier” because I also can show that hurricanes are not increasing (as many alarmists claim), neither are tornados, and droughts and floods are not becoming more common.

.....

In my book, “Energy for Future Presidents” (pig 74) I give the following categories:

Alarmists. They pay little attention to the details of the science. They are “unconvincibles.” They say the danger is imminent, so scare tactics are both necessary and appropriate, especially to counter the deniers. They implicitly assume that all global warming and human-caused global warming are identical.

Exaggerators. They know the science but exaggerate for the public good. They feel the public doesn’t find an 0.64°C change threatening, so they have to cherry-pick and distort a little—for a good cause.

Warmists. These people stick to the science. They may not know the answer to every complaint of the skeptics, but they have grown to trust the scientists who work on the issues. They are convinced the danger is serious and imminent.

Lukewarmists. They, too, stick to the science. They recognize there is a danger but feel it is uncertain. We should do something, but it can be measured. We have time.

Skeptics. They know the science but are bothered by the exaggerators, and they point to serious flaws in the theory and data analysis. They get annoyed when the warmists ignore their complaints, many of which are valid. This group includes auditors, scientists who carefully check the analysis of others.

Deniers.They pay little attention to the details of the science. They are “unconvincibles.” They consider the alarmists’ proposals dangerous threats to our economy, so exaggerations are both necessary and appropriate to counter them.

...

Interesting. Alarmists and exaggerators get a lot of air time and seem to view all others as deniers.

Should the alarmist and the exaggerators be listed as “deniers” since they don’t accept the basic conclusions of the IPCC? (They think the IPCC understates the conclusions.)

This all illustrates why people who give statistics on the number of deniers are often giving misleading conclusions.

This is likely true. Alarmists and exaggerators are anti science as much as out and out deniers.

Where do I fit? I do not deny climate change in general, but I am very skeptical of all the irrational and non scientific drivel arguments coming from the alarmists and exaggerators.... paint me skeptical, I guess.... or lukewarm.....

 

[Blackout]

Whoa, my old thread. It so long for people to reply, I did not think that...I asked something stupid.