Trump and Republicans are isolated on climate change

[DKW 86 7,419]

Look, AOC did, in fact, say 12 years. She got that from a UN Paper. (What you "believe" in that head of yours is another matter.)

Are you saying that we are all going to die in 12 years then?

If not, then welcome to reality with the rest of us where AOC does, in fact, say crazy s*** from time to time. And she got that crazy s*** from a UN paper.

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Obviously AOC needs to be much more calculating about what she says.

But to quote her as the "current narrative" suggests we define current narrative differently.  I take it as the position of respected scientific organizations, not any given politician. 

Likewise, the "Green New Deal" is a political statement not a scientific or economic one.  It does make some very valid points however.

I would welcome the respected scientific organizations to publicly debunk the 12 year statement.  I don’t think I’ll be seeing anything on the news though.

[homersapien 11,367]

22 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I would welcome the respected scientific organizations to publicly debunk the 12 year statement.  I don’t think I’ll be seeing anything on the news though.

I am not sure if I understand your point, but there are no scientific organizations - respected or otherwise - who have addressed such a claim, which is not a scientific claim in the first place.

 

 

[homersapien 11,367]

22 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Look, AOC did, in fact, say 12 years. She got that from a UN Paper. (What you "believe" in that head of yours is another matter.)

Are you saying that we are all going to die in 12 years then?

If not, then welcome to reality with the rest of us where AOC does, in fact, say crazy s*** from time to time. And she got that crazy s*** from a UN paper.

1) I am not disputing anything AOC said.  But can you please quote the statement in the UN paper that she supposedly used as the basis for her extinction claim?  I assume she misinterpreted it.

2) Of course I am not saying "we are all going to die in 12 years".    What have I said that would make you even ask that?  Tell me and I will clarify what I meant.

3) What makes you assume I am in a different "reality" than the "rest of you" concerning AOC.  Typically, you are assuming and inferring too much.

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

On 3/20/2019 at 1:19 PM, homersapien said:

I take it as the position of respected scientific organizations, not any given politician. 

You mentioned respected scientific organizations (not a specific one) in you earlier post

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

I am not sure if I understand your point, but there are no scientific organizations - respected or otherwise - who have addressed such a claim, which is not a scientific claim in the first place.

 

 

What I would welcome is one of these respected scientific organizations you mentioned to address AOC’s claim. Surely the scientists have an opinion about it. You believe it’s not true, so why wouldn’t the 97% of scientists that believe the globe is warming debunk such a claim?  The silence is deafening from this group.

[DKW 86 7,419]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

1) I am not disputing anything AOC said.  But can you please quote the statement in the UN paper that she supposedly used as the basis for her extinction claim?  I assume she misinterpreted it.

2) Of course I am not saying "we are all going to die in 12 years".    What have I said that would make you even ask that?  Tell me and I will clarify what I meant.

3) What makes you assume I am in a different "reality" than the "rest of you" concerning AOC.  Typically, you are assuming and inferring too much.

Apparently you didnt read the two accompanying articles....

Quote

It’s a reasonable take if you’re aware of the 12-year mark outlined in the 2018 UN “Special Report on Global warming of 1.5ºC,” released in October. It mentions the year 2030 — 12 years from now — as the point of no return, if we keep on our current path. It’s mentioned 35 times in the report in varying applications.

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Apparently you didnt read the two accompanying articles....

 

Nola eats homie's lunch now you are eating his dinner

[SaltyTiger 7,792]

On 3/19/2019 at 10:18 AM, homersapien said:

This is about the immediate future of our species.

It is not. This topic is about you belittling Trump and Republicans. The very reason many do not buy your politicized garb. 

Truth is most that contest do as much or more than you to preserve what God gave us on this planet.

  

[homersapien 11,367]

18 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Apparently you didnt read the two accompanying articles....

 

Apparently you didn't understand what the articles said.

12 years may very well be the no-returning point for initiating strong measures to halt or reverse global warming.  It's a debatable technical issue.

But this is NOT - repeat, NOT - the same as saying "we will be extinct in 12 years".  Two completely different statements with completely different meanings.

What is wrong with you people?  Do you not understand plain English or are the concepts being expressed simply too nuanced for you? 

[homersapien 11,367]

16 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Nola eats homie's lunch now you are eating his dinner

With complete misinterpretations of what is at issue? 

You don't get it either. 

[homersapien 11,367]

15 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

It is not. This topic is about you belittling Trump and Republicans. The very reason many do not buy your politicized garb. 

Truth is most that contest do as much or more than you to preserve what God gave us on this planet.

  

That's just BS.  You are the one who is making AGW a political issue, not me.  The science is the science.  In other words, you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

The reason people don't "buy" the science is simple ignorance.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

20 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

You mentioned respected scientific organizations (not a specific one) in you earlier post

What I would welcome is one of these respected scientific organizations you mentioned to address AOC’s claim. Surely the scientists have an opinion about it. You believe it’s not true, so why wouldn’t the 97% of scientists that believe the globe is warming debunk such a claim?  The silence is deafening from this group.

Such scientific organizations rarely - if ever - address irresponsible comments made by freshman congressmen.  Especially one as ignorant as this one.  So, the "silence" does not mean a thing. 

But I can assure you, every scientist in the field would roll their eyes and refute it as being simply wrong and unjustified, if not stupid.

[AFTiger 282]

Are these so climate scientists real scientists.  They clearly don't believe in the scientific method.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/20/michael-mann-reviewing-climate-change-claims-is-stalinism/

 

Quote

Michael Mann thinks President Trump’s new climate advisory panel is equivalent to Lysenko’s murderous efforts to suppress genetics.

Donald Trump is using Stalinist tactics to discredit climate science

Michael Mann and Bob Ward
Wed 20 Mar 2019 21.00 AEDT

A panel to promote an alternative explanation for climate change would be disastrous. Yet that’s what White House officials want.

Americans should not be fooled by the Stalinist tactics being used by the White House to try to discredit the findings of mainstream climate science.

The Trump administration has already purged information about climate change from government websites, gagged federal experts and attempted to end funding for climate change programmes.

Now a group of hardcore climate change deniers and contrarians linked to the administration is organising a petition in support of a new panel being set up by the National Security Council to promote an alternative official explanation for climate change.

The panel will consist of scientists who do not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are behind climate change and its impacts.

…

The creation of the new panel of climate change deniers, and the recruitment of supporters to provide it with a veneer of legitimacy, echoes the campaign by Joseph Stalin’s regime to discredit the work of geneticists who disagreed with the disastrous pseudo-scientific theories of Trofim Lysenko.

Lysenko wrongly believed that acquired traits could be passed on by parents to their offspring. Stalin embraced lysenkoism as the basis for Soviet agricultural policy, while also denouncing and persecuting Lysenko’s scientific critics.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/20/donald-trump-stalinist-techniques-climate-science

There are some differences between Lysenko and Will Happer. Lysenko didn’t just criticise his opponents, he had his opponents executed, or had them deported to socialist death camps.

As far as I know President Trump doesn’t plan to allow Will Happer to execute anyone, though some people might suffer acute public embarrassment when Will Happer finds mistakes in their work.

Climategate is full of climate scientists expressing outrage at having their work reviewed, and discussing strategies to evade freedom of information requests for data and method, but the sums of money expected for addressing the climate “crisis” – billions, even trillions of dollars – in my opinion make opposition to review utterly unacceptable.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

Don't really know what you're point is, but there is nothing Trump can do that will change the facts.  And like the title said, he's way out of step with the scientific and political reality.

You'll need to explain what you mean by "not agreeing with the scientific method".

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

On 3/20/2019 at 12:06 PM, homersapien said:

To point out the obvious, saying that "we have no more than 12 years to take action" is NOT the same as saying we could be extinct in 12 years.

While the former comment needs to be justified, it is at least plausible based on current indications. 

It just depends on what average temperature you think will result in "unacceptable" consequences.  For example, I think we are already "locked in" for a 2 degree rise, which will be bad enough.

You clipped the quote. He was clearly making it out to be doomsday.

“This is our final chance. The scientists are absolutely unanimous on this.  We have no more than 12 years to take incredibly bold action on this crisis.” 

What does final chance mean? Saying we don't have more than 12 years to try and fix it is absolutely false. It isn't unanimous like Beto was making out.  2030 has been used as a benchmark in the Paris agreement by countries who have pledged to cut emissions by that year. It's not a deadline for action or "our final chance" like the doomsday crowd has been spouting. 

 

[AUDub 11,147]

4 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

You clipped the quote. He was clearly making it out to be doomsday.

“This is our final chance. The scientists are absolutely unanimous on this.  We have no more than 12 years to take incredibly bold action on this crisis.” 

What does final chance mean? Saying we don't have more than 12 years to try and fix it is absolutely false. It isn't unanimous like Beto was making out.  2030 has been used as a benchmark in the Paris agreement by countries who have pledged to cut emissions by that year. It's not a deadline for action or "our final chance" like the doomsday crowd has been spouting. 

It’s the point at which the 1.5C guardrail becomes an inevitability. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

It’s the point at which the 1.5C guardrail becomes an inevitability. 

But it's not our final chance like Beto was clearly stating. Even the AP fact checked Beto's comments.

Quote

O’ROURKE, on global warming: “This is our final chance. The scientists are absolutely unanimous on this. That we have no more than 12 years to take incredibly bold action on this crisis.” — remarks in Keokuk, Iowa, on Thursday.

THE FACTS: There is no scientific consensus, much less unanimity, that the planet only has 12 years to fix the problem.

A report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, drawn from the work of hundreds of scientists, uses 2030 as a prominent benchmark because signatories to the Paris agreement have pledged emission cuts by then. But it’s not a last chance, hard deadline for action, as it has been interpreted in some quarters.

“Glad to clear this up,” James Skea, co-chairman of the report and professor of sustainable energy at Imperial College London, told The Associated Press. The panel “did not say we have 12 years left to save the world.”

He added: “The hotter it gets, the worse it gets, but there is no cliff edge.”

“This has been a persistent source of confusion,” agreed Kristie L. Ebi, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the University of Washington in Seattle. “The report never said we only have 12 years left.”

The report forecasts that global warming is likely to increase by 0.5 degrees Celsius or 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit between 2030 and 2052 “if it continues to increase at the current rate.” The climate has already warmed by 1 degree C or 1.8 degrees F since the pre-Industrial Age.

Even holding warming to that level brings harmful effects to the environment, the report said, but the impact increases greatly if the increase in the global average temperature approaches 2 degrees C or 3.6 degrees F.

“The earth does not reach a cliff at 2030 or 2052,” Ebi told AP. But “keep adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and temperatures will continue to rise.”

As much as climate scientists see the necessity for broad and immediate action to address global warming, they do not agree on an imminent point of no return.

Cornell University climate scientist Natalie M. Mahowald told the AP that a 12-year time frame is a “robust number for trying to cut emissions” and to keep the increase in warming under current levels.

But she said sketching out unduly dire consequences is not “helpful to solving the problem.”

https://apnews.com/fe7c9d4a9f8f458c827677d31230f594

[DKW 86 7,419]

Whenever I want to laugh my ass off, I reread any post where homer talks about nuance. The king is sycophantic acceptance of all talking points fussing about nuance???? Lmmfao....

look, those of pointing out WHAT WAS SAID are making the point that it was of course not true. That’s what made it so funny. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's just BS.  You are the one who is making AGW a political issue, not me.  The science is the science.  In other words, you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

The reason people don't "buy" the science is simple ignorance.

 

There is some ignorance, no doubt. There is also a history of grandiose way over the top statements that no one debunked. There is the shear hedonism of the AGW World Meetings, you know, where every person with a beating  heart has to have a personal Lear jet belching cubic tons of gases into the air and a personal limo to boot. If these people really believed this stuff they would get the optics right and quit giving the whackos a club to beat them with. 

[AFTiger 282]

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od

noun

 

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

   "criticism is the backbone of the scientific method"

    

   16 hours ago, homersapien said:

   Don't really know what you're point is, but there is nothing Trump can do that will change the facts.  And like the title said, he's way out of step with the scientific and political reality.

   You'll need to explain what you mean by "not agreeing with the scientific method".

   Facts are funny things. Add them all up and climate change is natural.

[AFTiger 282]

Inside the AGW alarmist's shouting is a myopic version of facts. Ignored is the effects of planetary mechanics and the effect on climate.

https://frontierscientists.com/2013/08/orbital-dynamics-and-climate/

 

There also a determined attempt to block anything contrary to their belief system. Clinging to much debunked 97% consensus is a good example of their attachment to flawed science. 

Over 450 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Challenging Man-Made Global Warming

https://www.cfact.org/2009/10/30/450-peer-reviewed-scientific-papers-support-climate-realism/

[homersapien 11,367]

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Whenever I want to laugh my ass off, I reread any post where homer talks about nuance. The king is sycophantic acceptance of all talking points fussing about nuance???? Lmmfao....

look, those of pointing out WHAT WAS SAID are making the point that it was of course not true. That’s what made it so funny. 

You said AOC was relying on the UN report and then, upon request, you presented the actual text you claimed justified her statement.

But the statements are in no way equivalent. You were wrong. 

Don't move the goalposts, just own it.

[homersapien 11,367]

4 hours ago, AFTiger said:

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od

noun

 

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

   "criticism is the backbone of the scientific method"

    

   Facts are funny things. Add them all up and climate change is natural.

I know what the scientific method is.

I was asking how is it relevant to this "expert commission" Trump is putting together.

[homersapien 11,367]

4 hours ago, AFTiger said:

Inside the AGW alarmist's shouting is a myopic version of facts. Ignored is the effects of planetary mechanics and the effect on climate.

https://frontierscientists.com/2013/08/orbital-dynamics-and-climate/

 

From your referenced article (emphasis mine):

"Climate, though, is a tricky thing. Orbital dynamics are not the only forces influencing our planet’s climate future. The Sun itself experiences cyclical changes governing how much energy it emits. On Earth, ocean temperature and circulation alters the climate signal. The contents of the atmosphere matter. Cloud-cover and aerosols like volcanic particulates change how much sunlight reaches Earth, and how much reflects back into space. And -as you know- greenhouse gasses act to keep heat trapped inside the atmosphere. The long-term Milankovitch-based climate model suggests a cooling trend, but it does not include human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gasses."

There is no scientific doubt about the significance of greenhouse gases.

[homersapien 11,367]

4 hours ago, AFTiger said:

There also a determined attempt to block anything contrary to their belief system. Clinging to much debunked 97% consensus is a good example of their attachment to flawed science. 

Over 450 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Challenging Man-Made Global Warming

https://www.cfact.org/2009/10/30/450-peer-reviewed-scientific-papers-support-climate-realism/

ClimateFact has an agenda (see their mission statement), they are not to be relied on for objective information.

As for the 450 papers, so what?  How many papers confirm AGW? 

It would be necessary to parse each of these papers individually to evaluate the impact or significance of their findings.  There is not a single major respected scientific organization in the world that is equivocal about the primary cause of global warming to be greenhouse gases.  Not a one.

The idea that persuasive evidence is being blocked takes us back to the global scientific hoax theory, which as I have said, is absurd.

The 97% number is a specific number that came from one study.  The consensus is in that neighborhood, maybe higher.  Again, I go back to positions statements issued by major scientific organizations.  These organizations don't take such positions without a consensus from the membership.

 

Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?

A new study argues the 97% climate consensus estimate is too low, while deniers claim it’s too high

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-tectonics-a-hoax