Slashdot Mirror
Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change
mdsolar points out this report in the NY Times:
An overwhelming majority of the American public, including nearly half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future. In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans say they are more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They are less likely to vote for candidates who question or deny the science of human-caused global warming.
Among Republicans, 48 percent said they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called "the most powerful finding" in the poll. Many Republican candidates either question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.
Among Republicans, 48 percent said they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called "the most powerful finding" in the poll. Many Republican candidates either question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.
Ask them what they willing to actually SACRIFICE to fix it and I bet you'll get a very different answer.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
most americans also support "action" on a lot of things. it does not mean most americans have any idea what the right things to do are.
remember, polls can be made to say whatever you want them to. Follow the money and see whos actually funding the poll to know what the desired outcome is.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Leftist news outlet trumpets success in convincing Americans they need to give up more power to the state. The majority agrees, so you should too!
Where do I make my voice heard that I don't want the US government manipulating the climate?
Support is fine until it comes out of a paycheck.. then, no flipping way. Watch what happens when Walmart shoppers are asked to pay higher prices for higher wages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What is it that they want the government to do about it? There is no reason for all the hysterical rantings and deniers. The governent owns and leases a huge number of buildings and vehicles. They just need to make changes to those first before trying to regulate others.
While nobody should be opposed to reducing pollution, affecting positives on our planet and doing better about wastes. The real problems go ignored such as China who by our own strict regulations on manufacturing have become the pollution capital of the world. I don't see the Al Gore's or Obama's preaching to the right people. Al Gore to me wants only to continue his preaching to those already onboard and he is only concerned with the money he makes. Obama basically is in the same camp as he wants to only attract supporters for political gains and investment in alternative energies. We have a lot of people preaching the gospel to the believers. China has cites where people typically walk around with masks on. Somehow we don't really see focus on the problems?
When are you idiots going to realize that this is a SCAM?
Sounds like a double load of methane producing horse hockey.
I bet the questions went something like this:
If the government were to do something about climate change that only affected the wealthy or the worst polluters, would you support this? YES!
Your average person is clueless to the fact that most industries have cleaned up their act so much that the general population is where the bulk of pollution and emissions are coming from. Also wealth is relative. Even a person on welfare is in the top 25% of wage earners on planet Earth, therefore part of the "wealthy" elite.
Oh wait you don't want a 20% cut in pay or increase in prices to support the "war" on climate change and a curtailing of your individual rights in order to accommodate an overreaching government? Then you don't actual support action after all.
But whats the point if we keep moving our manufacturing to china where they basically have no regulations when it comes to pollution, which in return pollutes the whole earth anyway. I would rather have all manufacturing back here with all the regulations in place and if corporations don't like it, well, they and their stock holders can go and fuck themselves.
Without knowing the wording of the question, there is no way to evaluate these results. I have seen too many polls reported in ways which distort what the actual results say to buy this one.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Most Americans support government action on labeling food products that contain DNA. These surveys are worthless.
Most Americans don't understand the nature of a constitutional republic, and the importance of limiting the power of a government. Including the author of the article.
slashdot needs to can it with these climate change articles. The data being introduced into these climate change models are fraudulent. Much of the models are being fit to "made up data" not real observations with associated uncertainties like real scientists use in system modelling.
And I'm sick of people trying to beat me over the head repeatedly with bad stats and bad assumptions as though repeating it all over and over again makes some sort of difference.
Any way to filter these lame idiotic postings?
I'm trying to download the poll document pdf and all I get is some Democrat advertising invoice.
Now, if only they could do something about the number of people who keep voting for assholes who break campaign promises, then campaign promises to do something about climate change might actually matter.
Log in or piss off.
"Nonpartisan" means that Resources For The Future doesn't officially support the Democrat party. Everyone who works there, however, voted Green or for Obama.
IOW, it's effectively partisan.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Politicians don't pay attention to voters. They follow the money. Koch et al who are making big bucks from fossil fuels control the politicians.
You can find similar polls on other topics... gun control, health care, education, etc. Politicians vote for the policies of their donors.
The US has the most corrupt political system... it's really fascism where the corporations and the rich control the government.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Then research on the other side of the coin is invalid as well. You can't have it both ways.
Also, "New York Times study" lol.
https://www.google.com/search?...
That was amusing, thanks.
>. A lot of this really just boils down to 60s ideas of environmentalism and reducing pollution. It's just that the modern spin ads an extra level of extreme hysterics to the situation that are likely to alienate people and trigger skepticism. ...
>. Someone thinks they need to generate a sense of urgency by any means necessary.
Exactly. That strategy DOES get some people hyped up, but it also makes a lot of tune you out. They then miss the message that's actually potentially accurate. The other day I posted a bunch of examples of leading climate researchers from Stanford, UC Berkeley, and Yale making statements like "by 2010, New York City will be underwater". Well, 2010 has come and gone and NYC is still there. With so much of that crap out there, it gets old hearing about it.
Somewhere, there is probably a reliable source for objective information. Since Stanford, Berkeley and Yale are provably spreading hyperbole (in the extreme), I don't know where to look for trustworthy information.
I think that you will find that the people who complained about the Koch-funded research were the deniers. They didn't take it well that the research agreed with the IPCC estimates. So this isn't really the "other side of the coin".
I cant believe people still believe that paying a carbon tax is going to do anything but make a few people richer and everyone else poorer. There is no attention paid to space weather trends or the use of a carbon tax to fund a corporate policy boards that will act as a defacto world government with an agenda that is not friendly to individual rights. Proponents don't seem to notice that there are weather manipulation programs in place right now. How is screwing up natural weather by spraying compounds into the atmosphere and shooting it with radiation just dandy but using any petroleum product is killing the earth? All of you Al Gore subscribers pay honor to the creation but not the creator. You are looking for your keys under the streetlamp instead of where you lost them because the light is better there. I love how the lefties always say global warming is ruining everything and it is not up for debate and that 100% of scientists agree. The planet will gain it's equilibrium back with or without your participation if it needs to. The NOAA all stars could not even predict the New York blizzard accurately. Why do you think they know what the climate is going to be like in 25 years? You sure feel smart being ugly to people that you deem as doing something wrong. It is gross how satisfied lefties feel when they get to be ugly to others. It seems to be their most favorite game. They invent reasons why others are stupid and tell each other how smart they are when they all repeat the same things. It sounds like evil chickens squawking. Just noise for the sake of the people making it. Did you ever think that the big push for the climate controversy may have others agendas in the payload? Did you ever consider that some of the people steering it admit this? Did you ever consider the conflict of interest that occurs when the pushers stand to make trillions if they can get the carbon tax policy in place?
Government Action can be anything - building seawallls and dykes, seeding the ocean with iron, mandating living in caves, resettling populations, handing out vouchers, giving contracts to lobbyists, doing nothing, adopting policies to reduce carbon emissions.
But this is never stated, which is damn annoying. Most people automatically assume the last option, which may well be the worst option, and then arguing over the details.
There is much bloviating over how much science has gone into proving AGW. But there is very little science indeed as to the optimal response.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
"The trouble with ignorance is that it feels so much like expertise." We Are All Confident Idiots
These show the frightening level of ignorance about science in the general US population:
http://news.nationalgeographic...
http://www.pewinternet.org/201...
Depending on which study you look at, apparently only 40% - 66% of Americans even believe evolution is real. What are you guys smoking over there?
"Most X Support Y" is such a lame argument for doing anything.
Most people here would like to kick your ass but that doesn't mean we should.
Most drivers on the freeway would like to speed but that doesn't mean the should.
Most kids support not brushing their teeth but that doesn't mean they should skip it.
Most people would like a double-wopper-hopper burger with extra fries but that doesn't mean they should eat it never mind every day.
Most people supporting something is a lame argument for anything.
Stop rationalizing and get rational.
This kind of study is hard on the deniers because it begins moving them toward Flat Earth Society status. In a democracy, the minority just doesn't matter very much once the majority has made up its mind. They stop being a part of the conversation. The only way they will be able to get back into the conversation is to start drawing lines in the sand saying what they will and will not give up. And that will be a good thing. We need to start talking about the tradeoffs that we will have to make.
You mean as opposed to all the other decades of the 19th through 20th century's idea of "let's just slash and burn and pollute all the ecosystems on the planet with our newfound technological power, and see how that goes for our descendants, because we don't give a rat's ass?" That genius idea that we are pretty much living by today? Remember that "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose".
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
That makes way too much sense. Therefore, it's political suicide. Fuggedaboudit.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
If one read the article you'll see no questions or answering that reflect the headline at all.
Misleading and inaccurate. Have the AGW supporters got so little that they must actively lie now?
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Shove giant corks in all volcanos.
Have gnu, will travel.
And I know it's because you made up shit about the claims "by 2010".
Not those who understand the Climate Scam!!!
Wake up. The earth has been COOLING for 2000 years!!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/18/new-study-two-thousand-years-of-northern-european-summer-temperatures-show-a-downward-trend/
Oh, some of them have updated it. Not long ago the Obama administration was circulating a piece with just such predictions, after having done a SEARCH AND REPLACE update to change "2010" to "2050". I kid you not.
There is some sound research out there, but it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff because there's a lot more propaganda than there is solid science.
Try to take a breath and have a little intellectual honesty. As you know, in these institutions updated there materials in the 1970s to early 1980s, from "OMG panic man-made ice age" to "OMG panic global warming" WITHOUT passing through any period of
"gee, maybe we were wrong, maybe there's nothing to panic about". It's ALWAYS panic about something. If you're at all honest with yourself, you'll recognize that going from one extreme theory to the other without passing through the middle shows many people have a need to be alarmist - it doesn't matter about what, they just need to be alarmist.
Experience indicates that sky is not in fact falling.
"Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change"
Didn't we JUST have a story about how ignorant the general public is about science?
Ergo...?
-Styopa
Here are a few names for you. Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich:
By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people"
United Nations Environmental Program, in 2005:
"Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, United Nations University experts say the international community urgently needs to define, recognize and extend support to this new category of refugee."
Cristina Tirado (University of California) again made the claim of 50 million climate refugees by 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
James Hansen headed NASA's Goddard Institute for 30 years before moving to University. In 1988, Hansen was asked by journalist greenhouse effect would affect New York by 2008. ÃoeThe West Side Highway [an elevated freeway] will be under waterà , Hansen said.
UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer was "chief scientist" for the Environmental Defense Fund in 1990. He said that by 1995 global warming will be "desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots."
Just for fun, along with all of these climate scientists, let's throw in our favorite leader of the global warming movement, Al Gore. Oppenheimer (above) was also an advisor to Al Gore, who claimed:
"The entire North Polar ice cap will disappear in five years. Five years is the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear." (The polar ice caps have actually INCREASED since then, significantly).
United Nations Environmental Program, Director of New York office in 1989:
Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000
We're spending $360 billion dollars a year based on these people's predictions - several thousand dollars per family in the US.
I'm going to repeat once more, it is true that today it is warmer than it was 500 years ago, and much colder than it was 1,000 years ago. So yes, the climate changes in cycles, absolutely. Stanford, Berkeley, and Princeton have just ridiculously exaggerated the effect, while pitching for yet another $10 million grant to continue their work. Are these crazy "warnings" which never come true a bit of a sales a pitch for the grants they're asking for, perhaps?
...are falling for the SCAM
New York City is well-situated to spend plenty of time underwater. The century is young!
Ask them if they are willing to pay money to have some quack make their life worse and they do NOT support it at ALL!!!
Just because the Koch Brothers are evil doesn't make everyone evil.
> What "leading climate researchers" said this?
Here are a few examples. You can of course easily find more. Just Google for "global warming" and set it to show results from whatever time you desire. I wanted to see predictions for 2000-2015, so I Google "global warming" for resources published in 1995 or earlier.
Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich:
By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people"
United Nations Environmental Program, in 2005:
"Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, United Nations University experts say the international community urgently needs to define, recognize and extend support to this new category of refugee."
Cristina Tirado (University of California) again made the claim of 50 million climate refugees, changing it to "by 2020" at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
James Hansen headed NASA's Goddard Institute for 30 years before moving to University. In 1988, Hansen was asked by a journalist how the greenhouse effect would affect New York by 2008. "The West Side Highway [an elevated freeway] will be under water" , Hansen said.
UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer was "chief scientist" for the Environmental Defense Fund in 1990. He said that by 1995 global warming will be "desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots."
Just for fun, along with all of these climate scientists, let's throw in our favorite leader of the global warming movement, Al Gore. Oppenheimer (above) was also an advisor to Al Gore, who claimed:
"The entire North Polar ice cap will disappear in five years. Five years is the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear." (The polar ice caps have actually INCREASED since then, significantly).
United Nations Environmental Program, Director of New York office in 1989:
Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000
We're spending $360 billion dollars a year based on these people's predictions - several thousand dollars per family in the US.
I'm going to repeat once more, it is true that today it is warmer than it was 500 years ago, and much colder than it was 1,000 years ago. So yes, the climate changes in cycles, absolutely. Stanford, Berkeley, and Princeton have just ridiculously exaggerated the effect, while pitching for yet another $10 million grant to continue their work.
> Rising CO2 levels and climate change are politically controversial only because the fossil carbon industry hired a bunch of PR firms to sow public doubt. Who needs science, when industry PR is gospel?
Indeed, who needs this "science" from NASA, Stanford, Berkeley, Princeton, and the UN, when Comedy Central is gospel?
You have to consider that the New York Times is heavily invested ideologically in catastrophic global warming, and an environmental research group makes money off of environmental alarmism and many of their personnel will depend on such funding for their livelihood. This poll is very different from almost all major polls conducted recently.
Look at the PDF you posted. It's not the poll.
...as with most polls of these sorts.
> So tell my why addressing CO2 emissions is a bad idea (not that you explicitly stated as much in your comments)
Indeed, I've said the opposite, right here in this thread. In the thread last week I said it over and over and over, while the alarmists in the thread just couldn't hear that. To them, it has to be either believe everything you hear and panic, or complete denial. No room for thought, for considering the veracity of the claims, or considering past claims the source has made. Odd.
There are, however, a lot of ways of "addressing the problem" that are REALLY bad ideas. I don't know if you are clear that there is a lot of hype an gross exaggeration, along with some reason for concern. If that's not a point we can readily agree on, I'll refer you to post also in this thread:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I think that post pretty well establishes that there are definitely plenty of people making wacko claims who have "respectable" titles - that there's plenty of extreme alarmist BS mixed in with more reasonable analysis.
We spent around $100 million per year to reduce drunk driving, and that saved 10,000 lives per year. So by that example, when spending wisely, saving lives costs about $10,000 per life. In other words, if you spend $1 million on the right things, you can expect to save 1,000 people. Maybe you spend it on stop-smoking initiatives, CPR training, driver training, whatever is shown to work best.
Based on the mix of science and alarmism, we're spending up to* $360 billion dollars per year, several thousand dollars per family in the US. I say "up to" because it's from source that will tend to count high. Let's guesstimate that source quadrupled the real amount, and the real cost that we should be using is only around $100 billion. We know that a $100 million drunk-driving campaign saved 10,000 people, so $100 BILLION spent wisely could save about 10,000,000 people. Ten million lives saved. Per year. That's the opportunity cost of devoting those resources to climate change related initiatives rather than health initiatives, or cancer research, or wherever they would make the most difference. That's why I think we should be very careful not to allocate huge amounts of resources based on alarmist, political, and clearly biased studies - because by doing so we're choosing to NOT use those resources on things proven to save many lives. To put it very bluntly, people are dying as a result of poor decisions made by politicians, based on exploiting and manipulating the emotions of their constituents.
What if I'm wrong, and not just a little bit wrong, but wrong by an order of magnitude. If I'm really, really wrong, only 1 million people would be saved each year by using these resources more wisely. When you're talking about major US government initiatives, hundreds of billions of dollars, the consequences are enormous. Putting $100,000,000,000 toward the wrong program means a lot of people die needlessly, because that $100,000,000,000 spent wisely could save a lot of people.
I support anything the facists want to do as long as my liberties are not infringed, my property is not touched, you stay out of my wallet and dont tell me what to do or how to live.
The 1990s want their False Equivalency tactics back.
(But notice how 'Koch brothers' is now used as a synonym for right wing. Praise St. Reagan at the altar of oligarchy!)
>. Do you even know how many people 50 million represents? Its LA and NYC combined.
>. You are making the claim. Please point to us with citations, the mass climate exodus you claim has been happening.
No, I'm pointing out that it didn't happen. The UN climate panel said it would happen, the date in question has passed, and nothing like that happened. Ergo, the UN climate change panel is full of it.
We spent $100 million per year on the campaign to reduce drunk driving. Drunk driving deaths were reduced by 10,000 per year. So roughly speaking, if you're willing to spend $100 million, you can save about 10,000 people every year. Campaigns to get people to stop smoking, disease and health research, and traffic safety programs can achieve similar results, for the good programs - about $10,000 per life saved.
Depending on how you count, global warming initiatives of various types such as research, PR, and new regulations cost us $100 billion - $280 billion per year. That's billion with a B, compared to $100 Million to drastically drunk driving. We know that when we use our resources wisely, we can save one person per $10,000, so $100,000,000,000 can save 10 million people if spent wisely. That's the true cost of spending $100 billion on mostly alarmist hype. We could instead divide that money as follows:
$10 billion for cancer research
$5 billion for traffic safety
$5 billion to reduce child abuse
$2 billion to fight teen smoking
$1 billion to help alcoholics and addicts who wish to stop
$1 billion for heart disease and health initiatives
And 75 more such programs.
How many millions of people have died because you'd rather play hippy than deal with the issues that are actually killing millions of people every year? Well, about 10 million people every year, the math shows. Do you want to keep playing silly politics, or should we put the resources toward actually saving lives, maybe yours.
You might enjoy the post more if you pay attention to the "will happen by" dates. Things are all things leading climate researchers were saying would happen by 2000, or 2010 or whatever - all dates that have come and gone. Amazingly, it's 2015 and California is still here, not underwater. Whether that's a good thing or bad you can decide for yourself.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
If USA's citizens had been required to pay for the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the expenses were incurred, instead of just adding it to the Bush deficit, we'd have been out of there the first day. "Support" seems to mean "has a fuzzy thought with some level of emotion attached", but not much else.
Even in places that have mass transit _and_ massive funding for mass transit, improvements are horrible to non-existent (see California).
If I take mass transit, the cost is 80.00/wk to go about 100 miles round trip daily, and I have to walk or bicycle the last 1-2 miles. It's not cheap, it's not convenient, and it's not faster than driving most of the time. In large part, this is due to the California welfare state and a large portion of riders not paying their fair. The bigger part however, is that instead of putting money into this system the legislature decided to build an 80billion dollar bullet train to run from near LA to near SF. Because the only way to get 9 million commuters off the freeway is to do absolutely nothing about it. *sigh*
Detroit is another example of a place that took shit tons of tax payer money to build a fancy merry go round called "The People Mover", which is a laughable system that supports the Casinos, a couple parking garages, and the RenCen.
In other words, demand for public transit does not make public transit happen.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
yeah but the corporations don't, so discussion over. go back to your little toys and games, citizens, you have no voice here.
Climate change, formerly global warming, formerly global cooling, the coming apocalypse 200 years from now, brought to you by people who can't predict a winter storm one day in advance.
Does the globe warm and cool: yes, see the previous warm periods and... ice ages, all happening before the internal combustion engine.
Does man affect the climate: locally, yes. Globally, not yet if we compare the historical temperature swings to what we see today.
Should we dump Billions of dollars into trying to prevent this while children are staving and homeless around the world and millions live in abject poverty. HELL NO!
Environmentalists fall into one of 3 categories:
1. Rational people who want clean air and clean water (but don't give a rats ass about CO2, which is soaked up by plants at a non linear rate, if you do a little research you know this).
2. Scientists and "Climatologists" whose job depends on selling their research so they can land their next grant, justifying their existence. If they don't predict the apocalypse, the odds of getting the next grant are vanishingly small, the only practical field is meteorologists who you see on the local news, and there aren't that many needed to serve the world.
and
3. People who have very little scientific experience or have chosen to trust someone else to spoon feed them information at the 2nd grade level rather than doing a little investigation on the arguments from both sides of the table; listen to the global warming crowd for the pro global warming argument and the people who don't buy in to it for their side of the argument, and there are plenty of scientists on both sides of this, anyone who says otherwise just doesn't have an argument to put forth.
1. Now take your statins and don't forget your flu shots. Just YOU Nevermind that real food behind those curtains.
2. ALL Americans are un-aware that 4 out of 5 New York Times employees love markist communist fascists and fully support false mossad flags where ever on earth they might be. GO ISRAEL, MOAR POWER, overtake the Pentagon vaults, and NSA data, Senate in Cali. Suffer the Goys.
3. Most Americans would give up the bill of rights and constitution in order to beat ISIS and after that be happy to wait MONTHS to get a DMV appointment while illegals swamp the place
4, George Soros has nothing to do with Nazi's in Ukraine or the State Department's dirty tricks by proxy
5. Jury Nullification is against the law.
We spent around $100 million per year to reduce drunk driving, and that saved 10,000 lives per year.
Can you give a reference to the source for this?
(I'm not disputing your assessment; just want to throw it all up in Excel sheet to see how much we could save per year if we diverted all military spending on Iraq+Afghanistan on social programs like that.)
But what is happening is BS. Unless ALL nations are involved, then nothing will change.
As it is, the largest polluter, China with more than 1/3 of the CO2 emissions, is being allowed to continue GROWING their emissions while only the west are to cut back.
This will NEVER succeed if this continues.
the only possible solution is if all nations cut back, and if they are cut back predicated on CO2 / $ GDP. The reason is that emissions are NOT tied to ppl,but dirty manufacturing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
NYT is about as leftwing as tofu
The really sad thing is that people will post back and forth about this change and that change that we should make.
Close coal power plants, build more electric cars, install more LED light bulbs...
None of it matters... not a single bit of it...
Why? Because over the next 30 years, the four nations that make up BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) will increase their output by about as much as the US produces today.
---
The United States of America could cut our output by 100%, we could all go back into caves... and it wouldn't make any difference, in 30 years our entire output will be replaced by other people.
---
The only real possible solutions are those that work worldwide, it doesn't take very many people ignoring them to make the entire effort pointless.
---
I'm open to suggestions that actually might lower the global total output by 50% over the next 50 years... Not reduce the increase, but actually lower the global total from today.
Because if you aren't reducing the global total, then you're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...
The fool shouts, "you are a climate change denier! You dont think the climate is changing! Follow our lead and together we can stop the climate from changing!"
The idiot who argues with the fool shouts
"The climate always changes! The U.N. just wants to gain economic control over resources and decide who wins and loses in the world!"
The fool counters..."Do you want to see islands disappear forever where cultures thrive?"
The idiot returns.. "Tectonic sublimation, and fear mongering! Remember the Himalayan glaciers fiasco! climate gate! Hide the decline! Hide the Decline! "
Ya'll need to STFU.
The AGW dorks might have one in a hundred who actually READS THE REPORTS! Proof is in the post above. IPCC finally admits to the decline in the warming trend despite the rise in CO2 yet dumbfux continue to repeat the hype. I cant believe anyone is that dumb so I assume they are being paid.
The 'deniers' need to stop even dignifying those dicks with any kind of reasonable response. This is SCIENCE not a fucking VOTE where if the duck floats it is human caused global warming!
The New York Times Dupes Readers â" Hypes climate poll by discredited Stanford Pollster Jon Krosnick â" Pollster was previously reprimanded for poor methods by both Gallup & Pew Research
This was a good idea back in 18th century and it is good idea now. It is a good thing that government can't do most of the thing that the majority wants it to do. Another thing is that states dont have to accept constitution changes. They can leave the union. USA is well built on the basic level.
Even if climate change is true, it doesn't matter heres why. Because Humans can figure out how to adapt and survive in any environment. Thats right, human ingenuity is strong such that we can develop technologies to deal with storms, rising weather, extreme temperatures and altered environments in general. Think about in history at what we as a species have done so far as proof of own knowledge and ability to survive. Personally, I don't buy into the notion that the government needs to save us from ourselves. That's never how problems are solved as the governement only has one tool in its tool box which is to use force. Forcing people to pay more money won't solve anything.
If we call it what it is.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Please show me where having a carbon tax (where no co2 is reduced, just funnel money to Africa) saves the lives of almost half of Canada per year. Do you see death rates of 10 million people per year? Suddenly all cancer, accidents, illness disappears because of ... Solar energy or something?
Okay, two people remember the conversation differently - one after having been thoroughly embarrassed by the reporter's recollection. Let's give Hansen the benefit of the doubt and assume he conditioned it on co2 at 560 the article you linked suggests. In other words, let's have a look at what Hansen now claims to have said.
CO2 levels have been above 350 for a good while now, right? Correct me of I'm wrong on that, I'm going by memory. That's an increase of around 50% from preindustrial levels as opposed to doubling. At the time, the West Side Highway was an elevated freeway, so Hansen was saying the water would rise twenty or thirty feet with CO2 at 560. CO2 is at 350 and how many feet has it risen? Zero feet. Hansen's claim still sounds rather fishy to me.
Certainly we agree that the reporter's quote of the scientist is crap, and that's what most people read - quotes from scientists, or claimed scientists, as reported by the media.
>. Although I still give opposing scientific views strong consideration - it's just so hard to find them in all the crap published.
Well we agree on that much. I'm just real clear that neither side has a monopoly on crap.
I gave one example of the cost of a campaign and the lives saved, the campaign to reduce drunk driving. You can easily calculate a few more, it's just division. Look up the cost of some program - a safety program such as requiring seatbelts perhaps, or vaccine research, or whatever. Then look up the number of lived saved and divide the dollars by the lives to get the cost per person saved.
I'd bet that requiring seatbelts cost a lot less than $10,000 per life saved. Airbags have probably been pretty cost effective too. AIDs treatments have really helped people live longer, better lives, while safe sex initiatives have saved many lives. I bet the whole safe sex initiative cost a few billion, while saving few million people, so it might be an interesting one to find numbers on.
Keep beating that dead horse, Slashdot. You'll convince everyone to switch to your agenda eventually. ClimateChangeDot (TM) is almost a success!
That was a very rough estimate, just to get a general idea of about what a good public safety program might achieve per dollar. You might want to calculate a few more, it's just division. Look up the cost of some program - a safety program such as requiring seatbelts perhaps, or vaccine research, or whatever. Then look up the number of lived saved and divide the dollars by the lives to get the cost per person saved.
I'd bet that requiring seatbelts cost a lot less than $10,000 per life saved. Airbags have probably been pretty cost effective too. Air bags and seat belts were not required one day, then were required the next day, so the difference should be clear.
In calculating the cost of Iraq, be sure to include the facts that a) Saddam was going around invading neighboring countries, gassing the Kurds etc, so going in did save some people and b) to be intellectually honest you have to account for the deterrent effect - what would dictators have done if the the US minded their own business. I would bet that you'll still have a strong argument, and a more balanced one.
They have:
A poor appreciation of what's actually happening.
A poor appreciation of what's at stake.
A poor appreciation of the cognitive abilities of the average politician in understanding any science.
A poor track record of taking any _personal_ action to address issues.
Put it all together and most are likely stating support because they know that that's the right answer to give in the current political space of climate change.
Individually, some of the most brilliant people on the planet.
As a group? Idiots.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Without government intervention your children, and possibly you, will perish in a ball of flame as if the Sun has engulfed the planet, interrupting filming of the Keeping Up with the Kardashians and raising the costs of Skinny Jeans.
Do you support Government action to prevent this?
a) Yes
b) Hell Yes
c) Save the Kardashians!
d) Save the Skinny Jeans!
If you look at the poll, people strongly oppose all the programs that explicitly increase taxes.
What they support is programs they presume to be of no cost to them. If you phrase those programs to reflect what they actually mean, I doubt you'd get much support for them:
As you may have heard, greenhouse gases are thought to cause global warming. Should the federal government pass laws that substantially increase the prices of rent, homes, cars, gasoline, electricity, and other goods and services in order to limit greenhouse gas emissions?
Do you support raising the income tax so that the government can subsidize selected energy companies?
Do you support raising the income tax so that the government can subsidize companies that burn coal if they reduce air pollution?
Yes we should do something about this 2.5 million year long ice age as it is hampering life and almost went to extinction level event in the last glaciation.
First add more CO2 to the atmosphere to prevent an extinction. At 150 PPM all land plant life dies followed shortly thereafter by all the land animals that rely on the plants and then all the carnivores that rely on the animals who rely on the plants. During the last glaciation we were very close to it. At 170-180 PPM we were 10% away from not having this discussion. So before we go back into the ice box lets get CO2 up to 600-700 PPM. Go China! Go India! Go all third world countries. Please burn coal etc a lot cleaner than you have been as it is only the CO2 that is beneficial.
Now CO2 won't give us more than 1 degree C per doubling and a glaciation does about 6+ degree drop so we can't rely on it to do the whole job but it's a good start! Nice to have a safety net.
If you think that CO2 controls the climate I have a question for you. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and almost 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Second we'll need to open up Panama so the Pacific can circulate into the Atlantic like it did 3+ million years ago. That will melt a lot of the poles and raise sea levels so we'll need to move a lot of people. Good news is that a lot of land in Canada and Russia will be available.
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and almost 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
We need to encourage energy efficiency to increase National Security. That's the way to sell it to red-blooded 'Merican patriots. Bonus: less wars to fight.
Like that scientific moron algore (who was gonna make 100s millions $$$ from his carbon credit middleman business) who declared 'The debate is over about global warming' when it it isnt and cant be (the statement would be one of the stupidist things said in the last century -- IF he wasnt just charlatan politico that just deserves belittlement and derision by any non leftist person).
No, 'most' people dont agree with this either - its just more leftist lies and propaganda
New York Under Water by 2010? that's insane! it was clearly 2012, Jeez those guys missed it by a few hundred days. what morons!
superstorm+sandy+causes+flooding+in+new+york+city
Amen. Cunt-servatives are nothing more than regression in thought. They remind me of 3 year olds.
you got it right that reagan fucked it all up!
There are 7 billion fuckers on the planet. The only way we can eliminate the affect of the human fuckers, fucking up the climate would be to keep the fuckers from fucking, or at least have mandatory abortions. Now the governments of the world will get together and decide that there are too many fucking C02 producers and start killing people in the name of making the climate green. Some politician will come up with a bill calling for the forced abortion off every kid not born to a member of the National air resources board. They will call it the 'bill to stop the rape of beautiful black babies by old white men' It will be passed because no one wan'ts to be on record as supporting the white people raping beutifull black babies. There won't be enough food to feed all the family members of the nations air resources board (because farmers are conservatives and not invited to be members of the air resources board), so the air resources board will inevitable have to start eating the aborted fetuses. Then be living in a soylent green world.
sensible post so it is down voted. Nuclear power is the only hope for humanity. The environmental wackos want no carbon emissions. However, every human being produces C02. Are we going to regulate human production. Every fire produces C02. Are we going to regulate camp fires (in California, I guess they do). Nuclear power produces no C02. Are we going to use that. No humanity is fucking stupid.
Sometimes I thing the greatest proof that there is no omnipotent God is that he hasn't kill off humanity yet. I know if I was God I would have killed all you fuckers a long time ago.
" Putting $100,000,000,000 toward the wrong program means a lot of people die needlessly, because that $100,000,000,000 spent wisely could save a lot of people."
For instance, for only ten times that we were able to kill half a million Iraqis. Who would want to detract from that to deal with something that only 97% of people who know what they're talking about consider a looming threat?
We've got plenty of threats, domestic and foreign, that require us to kill lots of people; we haven't got the luxury of addressing threats which do not involve killing anybody.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Most Americans have never been wrong before, have they...?
oh man.. do I have to be the details guy again... I hope you appreciate the research I've put in... or at least someone will. I'm sorry that I'm anonymous although I hope I'm not so opinionated that it matters.
"remember it differently"
I disagree. The reporter made a mistake re-quoting the quote from his book for a magazine interview. He corrected himself and Hanson has stated he stands behind his statement as quoted in the book. OK, maybe I agree in another way.. see below.
"Correct me if I'm wrong"
We were at CO2 of 350 ppm around 1990. You could argue 25 years is a while considering the 40 year quote... but considering the timescale climate change generally considers it's a very brief time.
350 is not 50% above pre-industrial ( more like 20 to 30% depending on the pre-industrial ).
Today we're at 400 which is a 37% to 50% increase.
Highway NOT elevated:
I googled the West Side Highway. Interesting in it's own right. It was built between 1929 and 1951. A cement truck fell through in 1977 and it was closed. It was demolished 1977 through 1982. There was a section that was preserved as they thought it might be part of a new highway - but it was finally demolished in 1989 as well as a section was refurbished in 1995. they rebuilt it in 2009.
These guys put a lot of work into an estimate ( but assuming the 20 year date and rebuilt highway) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/
I would venture a guess that the current roadway is built higher than the temporary one that existed in 1988.. so Hanson needs less than a 10' rise to be "right". No wonder he stands by his initial quote.
I agree that even 5' seems incredulous to me as well... but I believe it is within current estimates of the results of a few degrees of warming. Doubling of CO2 is 60 to 150 years away by my own rough extrapolation... so I don't know why he let the reporter even consider a timeframe of 40 years. That was the big mistake and may be the difference in memory you were alluding to earlier. The scientist was focused on the CO2 doubling whereas the reporter thought he was asking about a 40 year outlook. After all the care a scientist puts into his published and reviewed papers it almost seems criminal that a poorly worded quote should be used to try to negate his research. But then the goal of most denialists seems to be to muddy the water using the same strategies that the tobacco companies used to delay the fallout of cancer studies. A very successful strategy whether it's a smoking addiction or an oil addiction.
If anyone comes across this thread:
Bumped into this, pretty interesting - from 1981 - an actual published study by Hanson instead of an off-the-cuff illustration to a reporter.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/#more-11398
Thanks for the research. I do appreciate it. I'll strike that one from my list of ridiculous claims because it is at least debatable whether it's completely ridiculous or not. At least for now.
>. Highway not elevated
As you know, there was the old West Side Highway , and there is the new one that is sometimes called by that name. Hansen was speaking in 1988. Here's a picture from the highway in 1985:
http://weber-street-photograph...
Sure looks elevated. If you go back about two pictures on the same site and read the caption you'll find a photo taken in 1988 - the same year that Hansen said that. The caption of the photo says "the elevated West Side Highway".
An overwhelming majority of the American public doesn't give two shits about anything more complicated than who's going to win the next Super Bowl and what to order at McDonald's for dinner tonight.
Get real.
Thanks for appreciating my research skills.. sure wish I was quicker at tracking this stuff down. This one ended up backing up Hanson again too.. it was indeed grade level out his window and almost everywhere else by then as you'll see below.
According to Wikipedia most of the elevated highway was torn down in sections from 1973 until 1982 with a section ( 43rd Street and 59th Street) left standing but finally given up on and torn down in 1989. A section from 59th to 72nd was rehabilitated in 1995 and still exists today . By 1988 even the sections still standing had been closed for 15 years.
The Whatsup guys state that Hansons office is at 112th ( at Columbia University) ... well north of closed elevated section that wouldn't be revitalized until 1992 and the section in your picture from 1988. So pointing out his window at the "West Side Highway" during the interview he would've been indicating a grade level highway.
So even if the 15year abandoned elevated structure was still in view would it be referred to as the West Side Highway? Wikipedia seems to indicate that the old section would be referred to as the "old" or "elevated" or "Miller" highway and the new replacement simply as the "West Side Highway". Remember most of the elevated highway was torn down by 1982.
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Side_Highway_%28disambiguation%29