bobjohnsonforthehall
-
Posts
80 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Posts posted by bobjohnsonforthehall
-
-
9 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:
The use of "climate denial movement" was deliberate. It was intended to differentiate between honest skeptics (in general people who seek more evidence and then will allow the evidence to guide them) and deniers (for lack of a better term) who will essentially reject any or all evidence that does not confirm their preferred views. There is a difference and that difference is critical.
Ok that I can certainly agree with. Anyone who closes their mind on either side of this issue is simply a partisan hack and not interested in science. Definitely agree with you there. But that goes for both sides. No? I mean, anyone who closes their mind to the possibility of skeptics being right is guilty of the same thing you are condemning "climate deniers" of. Correct?
-
8 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
Yeah not going to happen. Like the glaciers at Glacier National Park. This arbitrary 2030 deadline for 90% extinction will come and go and everyone who touted will just keep whistling past the graveyard.
-
6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
thats old news, try this on for size:
The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about
By Sid PerkinsJul. 11, 2017 , 4:30 PM
Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. That’s the conclusion of a new study in which researchers looked at 39 peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and web-based programs that assess how an individual’s lifestyle choices might shrink their personal share of emissions.
Many commonly promoted options, such as washing clothes in cold water or swapping incandescent bulbs for light-emitting diodes, have only a moderate impact (see chart, below), the team reports today in Environmental Research Letters. But four lifestyle choices had a major impact: Become a vegetarian, forego air travel, ditch your car, and—most significantly—have fewer children.
Different variation of the same theme that is as incorrect today as it was when Ehrlich first postulated it. Only today it is couched in a "climate change" wrapping. And I suppose if one is gung ho to reduce one's carbon footprint, creating fewer people who would laso have a carbon footprint is a way to go. And hey, that's fine with me. If people I disagree with don't want to procreate more power to you.
-
6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
Haven't you been following the news? The two largest dairy conglomerates have gone into bankruptcy. Probably because of the hormone crap that was in their "product."
And beef is about the worse thing you can possibly eat, for health and for the environment. When I stopped eating meat, my BP went down about 20 points. I'd rather do that than take some pill for the rest of my life.
That's great for you. Not my thing though. And "probably" doesn't quite cut it as a reason for whatever bankruptcies you are referencing. Research the reasons and I would highly doubt it has anything to do with "plant based milk".
-
21 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
ah so you see my point about more population being a factor. Just look at how bad the pollution is in some of the most densely packed cities in the world.
Not more population. The location of said increase in population. Along with poor undergrowth policy. And cyclical weather patterns. And carelessness. Lethal combination no doubt.
-
21 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
Is that why the Navy is moving their base in Norfolk 17 miles inland?
Pretty much yes. If they are moving the base it is due to land subsidence and landfill settling. Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news.
-
15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
the ones about the Great Barrier Reef going bye bye
If were an actual thing. Which it isn't. Coral adapts amazingly well. It thrived in oceans far more acidic during much warmer times with far more CO2 than we are currently experiencing.
-
15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
actually the majority of research has shown that the best way to limit the carbon footprint is to have one less child.
It's one of the biggest problems in the developing world.
Paul. Ehrlich. My goodness.
-
15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
the spreading of propaganda is something that FOX has taken right from the Nazi play book.
So Fox are Nazi like propagandists? Good to know. Please do continue.
-
15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
Good news is that plant based burgers taste exactly the same and are gaining in popularity and are available at most fast food joints. Plant based dairy is driving "real milk" into bankruptcy also.
Not really no. Plant based burgers aren't too bad. but they are about as unhelathy as they can possibly be. So what's the point exactly? I'm going to eat something that is full of things that are bad for me just to avoid meat? Sorry. Not happening. And plant based dairy is driving real milk into bankruptcy? Lol. Hyperbole much?
-
1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said:
The attack on Dr. Michael E. Mann, one of the world's most-cited and visible climate scientists, provides just another illustration of the intellectual, scientific, and moral bankruptcy of the shrinking climate denial movement.
That movement's success rests on total rejection of science, complete repudiation of evidence, and wholesale perversion of truth. Its arguments have nothing to do with science, evidence, or truth. Its arguments are nothing more than unsubstantiated (and more often, repeatedly discredited) public relations talking points aimed at confusing the public and raising doubt.
The shrinking climate denial movement is currently engaged in an all-out noisy "Battle of Bulge" disinformation campaign. Its propaganda has largely recycled the discredited arguments made by the tobacco industry in the 1960s to counter unequivocal and irrefutable evidence of the link between smoking and, among other adverse health impacts, lung cancer. In this case, it seeks to evade the overwhelming and still growing body of scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change, its causes, and its consequences.The climate denial movement does not seek to advance arguments through scientific peer review. Doing so would be futile, because its arguments could not survive rigorous scientific examination. In addition, doing so would not serve its purposes, because that movement is not interested in productive endeavors such as knowledge creation, along with the enormous positive spillovers that arise from new knowledge translated into innovation.
That movement as a single goal: Sustain an indefensible status quo at all costs. Thus, its target audience is the general public, not the scientific community or others who have expertise in the field.
The climate denial movement understands that as long as it can raise doubts among the general public, not all of whom are scientifically literate and many of whom are not connected to the scientific community, it is well-positioned to thwart effective public policy responses to the severe challenge of climate change. So long as the public policy landscape remains frozen in time, that movement can reap additional profits made possible from the status quo, while remorselessly shifting the burden of the costs of those destructive activities to future generations.
The climate denial movement is nothing more than the 21st century version of the "tobacco prophets" who tilted against the windmills of scientific understanding. The climate denial movement is not scientific. It is not noble. Its intentions are not good. Just as those who knowingly and tenaciously fought to deprive the public of the devastating health-related risks of smoking, the climate denial movement knowingly aims to imprison society in a status quo that is hazardous to the economic, financial, and social well being of humanity. That movement has no concern whatsoever for the future generations who will be left to bear the full consequences of that movement's ruinous efforts.
Wow. Lots to unpack there. However, I will say that your constant use of the term "climate denial movement" is rather telling. Why argue on merits when labeling your opposition is much faster and more effective. Amirite? My suggestion on this front would be using this invective a tad less often while accusing others of "spreading propaganda". Just an FYI.
As to Dr Mann, being cited and published is what makes him an authority? Back when science was actually...your know...concerned with science I could see that being true. These days unfortunately "publish or perish" is the rule of the day. Add in the grant money needed to continue actually working in the profession, and there is little wonder why Mann and his ilk are so revered within the echo chamber that is the scientific community these days. Many papers these days, including the one cited in another thread regarding oceans warming, are nothing more than a pile-on to gets one's name on something to keep the grant money flowing. There is often an inverse relationship between the number of names on the paper and the quality of the work. That particular one being a prime example.
You say that the "climate denial movement" is shrinking. Not entirely sure where you get that idea. Seems quite a few countries throughout the world are heading away from your way of thinking. Perhaps I am wrong. What do I know? Whether there are a billion people or just one, being correct has nothing to do with the number of people who "believe" something to be true. You use the term propaganda. I would postulate that the propaganda has been on your side for decades. Simply substitute the term "climate alarmist movement" for "climate denial movement" and it is quite applicable to most of your above statement. Except for the scientific peer review part. Which, again, tough to penetrate an echo chamber that is so beholden to the money that flows only in one direction. Same with media. The more sensational the better. So alarmism wins every time. Gets more clicks.
Science is not afraid of contrary views. It welcomes it. It is always pushing what is perceived to be accurate. If it didn't we'd all still be eugenicists. Wouldn't we?
-
46 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
it doesn't matter if they were hotter then than they are now- the rate of change now is what matters. And if you go back before human history, mass extinction events resulted because of sudden changes- and we have a mass extinction event underway right now.
Really? A mass extinction event? Really?
No I mean...Really?
-
57 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
I'm wondering if their new climate can no longer support their old growth..... ditto with Siberia and California, where other multimillion acre fires have been occurring. We might be seeing a long term evolution towards a more desert or, at the very least, a grassland/savanna kind of climate.
57 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:I'm wondering if their new climate can no longer support their old growth..... ditto with Siberia and California, where other multimillion acre fires have been occurring. We might be seeing a long term evolution towards a more desert or, at the very least, a grassland/savanna kind of climate.
Or it could just be cyclical, to go along with more population in areas prone to such issues as well as poor undergrowth management.
-
56 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
Mar a Lago will likely be flooded before 2050, parts of the Keys have already been underwater for a few months now.
About Hong Kong, thats probably what China wants. Did you read about how they didn't care when they had manmade earthquakes as a result of building giant dams?
Not all flooding is caused by "sea level rise". Subsidence has far more to do with it. If those that talk a good game regarding climate change and sea level rise actually practiced what they preached, they would not be buying multi million dollar homes in areas where some claims say will be under water in a couple of decades. See also: Obama, Barack and Michelle
-
51 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
well the coral reef predictions are sure coming to pass.
Which ones?
-
51 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
Having fewer children is the best way individual people can help.
Ah yes. The "population problem". Paul Ehrlich is still revered by so many yet couldn't have possibly been more wrong about pretty much everything.
-
53 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
Trust me, I have been throwing China and India under the bus too. Do you know the air in Delhi India is so polluted they cant even breathe there? The meat industry also has to change- they are right behind China and the US when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.
Good luck with that. And by that I mean...get your hands off my burger!
-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
I believe they have some professional psychologists working for them who know exactly how to confuse people. The mind games are strong, the science of spreading propaganda has been perfected over the decades..... the Nazis did this too.
Who is this "they" you speak of...that you are equating to nazis?
-
25 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
increasing severity of el nino has also been connected to AGW.
That doesn't do anything to answer my post regarding the sensitivity and accuracy of the math used in the paper.
-
25 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
the amount of heat being added to the oceans is the equivalent of 5 Hiroshima level atomic bombs EVERY SECOND! Also read the paper on oceanic heatwaves that was posted earlier, pretty eyeopening....
And the amount of heat being added to the oceans BY THE SUN is what? A thousand times that? Every second? Yawn.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:
Yes. True genius he. Quite the scientist.
-
6 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:
That's a point a lot of people either ignore or worse. I believe the US/Europe contribute 15% of all emissions & are gradually declining while China/India/Russia do the rest and they're rising.
Even if the US/Europe were to go net zero we'd still have a global problem. Unless those countries change, nothing will change.
That's a good indication that all of this has little to nothing to actually do with trying to save the planet from humans. Developed nations CO2 emissions are projected to decrease over the coming decades, while CO2 emissions from developing nations (China, India etc) are expected to increase by some 87%. If this was truly about saving the planet from CO2 emissions, people would be throwing China, India et al under the bus en masse. Instead you rarely hear criticism regarding not only their currently large emissions as a global percentage, but also their trajectory of future emissions as a global percentage. Why would that be?
-
China cleans up its polluting? Does their "scrubbing of all emissions" include the building of more coal plants than are being built in the rest of the world combined or no?
Blue ocean event? Is that like the glaciers in Glacier National Park completely disappearing this year? Only they're not? Or the plethora of other dommsday predictions that have failed to materialize over the decades?
But yeah. Michael Mann and stuff. True genius.
-
19 minutes ago, rclab said:
My apologies for the presumption, Strong belief and strong denial will often lead to stronger emotions. Whatever the outcome, time will tell, whether/weather we like it or not. As always ...
Certainly true. I do not have a problem with individuals who believe that humans are causing great harm to the climate. I have far more of a problem with people like Mann who have made themselves into something of a cottage industry and become quite wealthy and well healed while simultaneously doing their best to protect their status by slandering and trying to shut down conversation and dissension. He is the antithesis of what science is supposed to be. Thus the lol.
Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change
in Climate Change
Posted
Again "probably". Actually I will give you some credit on this one. I did not realize that plant based milks are getting as popular as they are. I have researched a bit and it seems they are really taking off over the past year or so. So you are correct on this one. Still. Hands off my burger!