Yet another scientist against climate disaster

661 Views | 25 Replies | Last: 8 mo ago by Canada2017
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/climate-expert-shreds-claims-made-by-ocasio-cortez-thunberg-in-congressional-testimony
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did you even read the article?

From the man's testimony:

Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."

He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Of course there is climate change. We still see the residual glaciers melting that are remnants of an Ice Age, they will be gone soon enough, but that has nothing to do with us.

As long as scientist continue to push the models that a trace gas CO2 is the driver behind our current climate shift, instead of cycles that we have absolutely no control over, the focus will remain on changes that will have no affect on climate.

Better to be warming than cooling however. A 5C shift downward in temps actually could be very bad.




Quote:

"I also care about getting the facts and science right. I believe that scientists, journalists, and advocates have an obligation to represent climate science accurately, even if doing so reduces the saliency of our concerns," Shellenberger continued. "No credible scientific body has claimed climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species. And yet some activists, scientists, and journalists make such apocalyptic assertions, which I believe contribute to rising levels of anxiety, including among adolescents, and worsening political polarization."
Shellenberger's remarks are an apparent shot at Thunberg's claim that "we are in the beginning of a mass extinction" and Ocasio-Cortez' claim that "we have 10 years left to plan and implement a Green New Deal before cataclysmic climate disaster."
"My colleagues and I have carefully reviewed the science, interviewed the individuals who make such claims, and written a series of articles debunking them," Shellenberger continued. "In response, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change invited me to review its next Assessment Report, and Harper Collins will publish our research findings this June."

Here is the part of the article that really matters. He is talking about the hair on fire folks like AOC and others who simply spread propaganda.

We have always adapted to changes in climate, we will always adapt to changes in climate. The only changes that could be very detrimental, would be a large shortening of growing seasons worldwide, which could actually affect our food supply. That said even if the worst happened, it is so gradual we would adapt.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Did you even read the article?

From the man's testimony:

Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."

He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He is talking about the hair on fire folks like AOC and others who simply spread propaganda.

Thank you. That's why I entitled this thread the way that I did.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:


Better to be warming than cooling however. A 5C shift downward in temps actually could be very bad.
Absolutely. Mankind has historically suffered far more from cold than from heat, but the real point is we have no control over what the climate does either way. We do have control over how we adapt and of course the question that rarely even gets asked is if there are actually advantages to a warming climate? The answer is "yes" by the way as in potentially longer growing periods for crops which could potentially better feed the world, etc. There would or at least should be greater alarm if the climate is clearly "cooling" (as by the way radical climate alarmists were predicting back in the 70's, saying we were going to freeze to death in 10, 12 0r 15 years, etc.) as to how to adapt. Again, either way, we can only adapt - we can't stop it, reverse it, control it, or make it any better or worse.

And finally, none of this has anything to do with being environmentally responsible - which is a different topic and in fact something we as humans can impact for good or for bad.
ScottS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh no....climate change!!! Create a space suit. Modify your home.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

Booray said:

Did you even read the article?

From the man's testimony:

Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."

He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.
And completely failed to understand it.

He agrees with the underlying point of the huge majority of client scientists to the point of advocating for substantial and expensive action. The fact that he thinks the problem is solvable and that the tactics of some in publicizing the problem is both correct and irrelevant to what we should do next.

A man comes in yelling that the entire city is on fire, the building you are in is about to be destroyed and all is lost. You walk outside and see a small fire next door. You have two choices: call the fire department or go back inside and mock the alarmist for overstating the problem. You are choosing the second option.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I will accept climate change when we reject more than two genders. Until then, go **** yourselves.
What makes the offended right?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrowlTowel said:

I will accept climate change when we reject more than two genders. Until then, go **** yourselves.
I love you man, but I honestly believe there are three.

1. Male.

2. Female.

3. I don't know what I am and it is your fault and you are a hater.

Welcome to 2020.
MAGAA- "Make America Great Again Again!"
ScottS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All you clowns that are worried about this please move to the moon or another planet.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You guys are dumber than Jim Inhofe.

These anti climate guys come off as the "oil *****s" Hollywood describes when they embarrass Inhofe types.
Most Americans understand it's about money when it comes to disregarding climate change. It's getting to the point Americans will pay more for other energy.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

You guys are dumber than Jim Inhofe.

These anti climate guys come off as the "oil *****s" Hollywood describes when they embarrass Inhofe types.
Most Americans understand it's about money when it comes to disregarding climate change. It's getting to the point Americans will pay more for other energy.
No, it's actually about common sense, reality, and the realization that the whole man made climate change hoax/fraud is nothing more than an attempted scare tactic designed to terrify the masses into surrendering liberty and turning power over to the totalitarian left.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

fadskier said:

Booray said:

Did you even read the article?

From the man's testimony:

Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."

He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.
And completely failed to understand it.

He agrees with the underlying point of the huge majority of client scientists to the point of advocating for substantial and expensive action. The fact that he thinks the problem is solvable and that the tactics of some in publicizing the problem is both correct and irrelevant to what we should do next.

A man comes in yelling that the entire city is on fire, the building you are in is about to be destroyed and all is lost. You walk outside and see a small fire next door. You have two choices: call the fire department or go back inside and mock the alarmist for overstating the problem. You are choosing the second option.
Nope. I got the water hose and put the small fire out myself.

You are missing the point. The more that climate disaster promoters scream, the less that people believe them. No one denies that climate is changing or that we as humans, should do what we can. It's just that most of us don't believe that we have 10-12 years until the apocalypse.
bearassnekkid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

fadskier said:

Booray said:

Did you even read the article?

From the man's testimony:

Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."

He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.

A man comes in yelling that the entire city is on fire, the building you are in is about to be destroyed and all is lost. You walk outside and see lightning strikes from a storm. You have two choices: call the fire department and tell them you're worried that this could possibly result in a fire (even though there's not much they can do to stop lightning), or go back inside and mock the alarmist for overstating the problem. You are choosing the second option.
FIFY
ABC BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ScottS said:

Oh no....climate change!!! Create a space suit. Modify your home.
In the event of an apocalypse I will first call the Baylor ticket office and see if any better season ticket seats have opened up recently. Four tickets to Sing would be nice too.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here is the deal, the climate is changing, and we can't stop it, it has always changed and will always change.

Adaptation incrementally like we have always managed to do is the way to go.

Cleaner safer less polluting energy is also the way to go, but it won't stop the climate from changing.

xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

xiledinok said:

You guys are dumber than Jim Inhofe.

These anti climate guys come off as the "oil *****s" Hollywood describes when they embarrass Inhofe types.
Most Americans understand it's about money when it comes to disregarding climate change. It's getting to the point Americans will pay more for other energy.
No, it's actually about common sense, reality, and the realization that the whole man made climate change hoax/fraud is nothing more than an attempted scare tactic designed to terrify the masses into surrendering liberty and turning power over to the totalitarian left.
Climate change does not exist in the oil industry but does everywhere else.


I always enjoyed Inhofe throwing around a snowball in the senate chambers. It proved the climate change theories to be more accurate with more snow. Old Inhofe has never read anything so his ignorance is his own fault.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

Johnny Bear said:

xiledinok said:

You guys are dumber than Jim Inhofe.

These anti climate guys come off as the "oil *****s" Hollywood describes when they embarrass Inhofe types.
Most Americans understand it's about money when it comes to disregarding climate change. It's getting to the point Americans will pay more for other energy.
No, it's actually about common sense, reality, and the realization that the whole man made climate change hoax/fraud is nothing more than an attempted scare tactic designed to terrify the masses into surrendering liberty and turning power over to the totalitarian left.
Climate change does not exist in the oil industry but does everywhere else.


I always enjoyed Inhofe throwing around a snowball in the senate chambers. It proved the climate change theories to be more accurate with more snow. Old Inhofe has never read anything so his ignorance is his own fault.


You are a ******. Please stop posting here.
What makes the offended right?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

Johnny Bear said:

xiledinok said:

You guys are dumber than Jim Inhofe.

These anti climate guys come off as the "oil *****s" Hollywood describes when they embarrass Inhofe types.
Most Americans understand it's about money when it comes to disregarding climate change. It's getting to the point Americans will pay more for other energy.
No, it's actually about common sense, reality, and the realization that the whole man made climate change hoax/fraud is nothing more than an attempted scare tactic designed to terrify the masses into surrendering liberty and turning power over to the totalitarian left.
Climate change does not exist in the oil industry but does everywhere else.


I always enjoyed Inhofe throwing around a snowball in the senate chambers. It proved the climate change theories to be more accurate with more snow. Old Inhofe has never read anything so his ignorance is his own fault.
Man, you are proof that "pay to play" (post) is alive and well. You have nine lives. I am very disappointed in the Mods for not giving you a timeout for posting what you did yesterday on the football board. cinque got banned for posting something much less inflammatory many months ago.
MAGAA- "Make America Great Again Again!"
CHP Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ScottS said:

All you clowns that are worried about this please move to the moon or another planet.
Space Force anyone.
bularry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

Booray said:

fadskier said:

Booray said:

Did you even read the article?

From the man's testimony:

Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."

He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.
And completely failed to understand it.

He agrees with the underlying point of the huge majority of client scientists to the point of advocating for substantial and expensive action. The fact that he thinks the problem is solvable and that the tactics of some in publicizing the problem is both correct and irrelevant to what we should do next.

A man comes in yelling that the entire city is on fire, the building you are in is about to be destroyed and all is lost. You walk outside and see a small fire next door. You have two choices: call the fire department or go back inside and mock the alarmist for overstating the problem. You are choosing the second option.
Nope. I got the water hose and put the small fire out myself.

You are missing the point. The more that climate disaster promoters scream, the less that people believe them. No one denies that climate is changing or that we as humans, should do what we can. It's just that most of us don't believe that we have 10-12 years until the apocalypse.
I think many on this thread have expressed the opinion that man has no impact on the climate. That seems patently false from everything I've read (I'm no scientist), but as stated above many see it as a "hoax" to take away their freedom and declare a leftist world govt or something, where Beyonce and Macron rule the world.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bularry said:

fadskier said:

Booray said:

fadskier said:

Booray said:

Did you even read the article?

From the man's testimony:

Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."

He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.
And completely failed to understand it.

He agrees with the underlying point of the huge majority of client scientists to the point of advocating for substantial and expensive action. The fact that he thinks the problem is solvable and that the tactics of some in publicizing the problem is both correct and irrelevant to what we should do next.

A man comes in yelling that the entire city is on fire, the building you are in is about to be destroyed and all is lost. You walk outside and see a small fire next door. You have two choices: call the fire department or go back inside and mock the alarmist for overstating the problem. You are choosing the second option.
Nope. I got the water hose and put the small fire out myself.

You are missing the point. The more that climate disaster promoters scream, the less that people believe them. No one denies that climate is changing or that we as humans, should do what we can. It's just that most of us don't believe that we have 10-12 years until the apocalypse.
I think many on this thread have expressed the opinion that man has no impact on the climate. That seems patently false from everything I've read (I'm no scientist), but as stated above many see it as a "hoax" to take away their freedom and declare a leftist world govt or something, where Beyonce and Macron rule the world.

I wouldn't say no impact, as city heat islands themselves are a climate impact as they create micro-climate's especially in large metropolitan areas. There is a reason low temps are lower in Stephenville than they are in Arlington.

I would say the impact overall is very small however. Such as if the climate changes +3C we probably impact 1/1000th of the change. If it drops -3C, we probably keep the drop from being -3.01C, just a small overall impact in comparison with the vast and almost limitless factors that have an impact on changes.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrowlTowel said:

xiledinok said:

Johnny Bear said:

xiledinok said:

You guys are dumber than Jim Inhofe.

These anti climate guys come off as the "oil *****s" Hollywood describes when they embarrass Inhofe types.
Most Americans understand it's about money when it comes to disregarding climate change. It's getting to the point Americans will pay more for other energy.
No, it's actually about common sense, reality, and the realization that the whole man made climate change hoax/fraud is nothing more than an attempted scare tactic designed to terrify the masses into surrendering liberty and turning power over to the totalitarian left.
Climate change does not exist in the oil industry but does everywhere else.


I always enjoyed Inhofe throwing around a snowball in the senate chambers. It proved the climate change theories to be more accurate with more snow. Old Inhofe has never read anything so his ignorance is his own fault.


You are a ******. Please stop posting here.
You dinosaur. You are a oil *****. It's real but $$$$ counts.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

xiledinok said:

Johnny Bear said:

xiledinok said:

You guys are dumber than Jim Inhofe.

These anti climate guys come off as the "oil *****s" Hollywood describes when they embarrass Inhofe types.
Most Americans understand it's about money when it comes to disregarding climate change. It's getting to the point Americans will pay more for other energy.
No, it's actually about common sense, reality, and the realization that the whole man made climate change hoax/fraud is nothing more than an attempted scare tactic designed to terrify the masses into surrendering liberty and turning power over to the totalitarian left.
Climate change does not exist in the oil industry but does everywhere else.


I always enjoyed Inhofe throwing around a snowball in the senate chambers. It proved the climate change theories to be more accurate with more snow. Old Inhofe has never read anything so his ignorance is his own fault.
Man, you are proof that "pay to play" (post) is alive and well. You have nine lives. I am very disappointed in the Mods for not giving you a timeout for posting what you did yesterday on the football board. cinque got banned for posting something much less inflammatory many months ago.
C'mon man. How many rigs are left in Seguin?
New big money is coming with wind.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bularry said:

fadskier said:

Booray said:

fadskier said:

Booray said:

Did you even read the article?

From the man's testimony:

Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."

He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.
And completely failed to understand it.

He agrees with the underlying point of the huge majority of client scientists to the point of advocating for substantial and expensive action. The fact that he thinks the problem is solvable and that the tactics of some in publicizing the problem is both correct and irrelevant to what we should do next.

A man comes in yelling that the entire city is on fire, the building you are in is about to be destroyed and all is lost. You walk outside and see a small fire next door. You have two choices: call the fire department or go back inside and mock the alarmist for overstating the problem. You are choosing the second option.
Nope. I got the water hose and put the small fire out myself.

You are missing the point. The more that climate disaster promoters scream, the less that people believe them. No one denies that climate is changing or that we as humans, should do what we can. It's just that most of us don't believe that we have 10-12 years until the apocalypse.
I think many on this thread have expressed the opinion that man has no impact on the climate. That seems patently false from everything I've read (I'm no scientist), but as stated above many see it as a "hoax" to take away their freedom and declare a leftist world govt or something, where Beyonce and Macron rule the world.


As a past scientist two lifetimes ago .....I find the data conclusive that climate change is occurring and man made carbon emissions are a huge contributor.

Unfortunately it is highly unlikely mankind will do anything to stop it . As a species we are too selfish and fragmented .

IMO the only hope is some industrial/corporate research team comes up with a non invasive solution. ....for profit .

Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.