The right wing once more is isolated in what they believe. (Page 7): Once again I have cleared the room. My mighty questions have caused the barbarians to flee.

son of witless

debeda wrote:

Once again I have cleared the room. My mighty questions have caused the barbarians to flee.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

son of witless wrote:

Scuse me while I grope back to consciousness. You ... (show quote)

As you say, we can not know if any effort helps to dodge such a huge event.. so what is wrong with doing the good work and then, knowing the right wing you could and would crow that we never had an issue at all . how could anyone tell you otherwise.. but still you do not want any effort to be made.. strange group of non doers over on the right..

And you think reducing the world population would be a good thing? go for it.. post some facts and get a discussion started.. see what people think..

wanting to keep to foul and lethal fossil fuels at any cost to lives and health seems a bit stern, yet you right wingers love the idea.. Is it like war, but only send other peoples kids?? but all of the population are subjects to the CC.. it is not only others who will suffer..

Whatever we do or do not accomplish, it is not the "world" which will end, that will adapt over a eons and be just fine in some-other form. It is however the civilization which could end if the effects continue to go unchecked..

MR Mister Loc: Washington DC

peg w wrote:

The grean new deal is a plan for survival. It was 40 degrees above normal three days ago. Is Trump going to change that fact? What does 40 degrees sbove normal look like in the middle of summer?

Once upon a time, all the ice melted in the world, little gecko's grow to be 90 feet long! We call them dinosaurs today, if not for a big rock falling out of the sky we/you wound be dino food today. Your 40 degree day was do to a big high pressure dome that left and now it's -13.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Seth wrote:

When more than 90% of the "news" media a... (show quote)

Geez, Seth,,,lol did you read what you posted???

You insist that 90% of the world is compleatly wrong and somehow trying to steal your money, all of this via a fraud which that 90% is in lock step with..

damn, I have seen a huge number of conspiracy plot ideas.. but this has to rate near the top of all of them

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

lindajoy wrote:

Propaganda will do that for some~~ Nature of the b... (show quote)

You do understand the "trends" are about more than todays weather..

What is the point of looking at long past events when the current problem is change over only 100s of years, the long past was over many centuries..

But now we have the huge population and the civilization which will not be sustained if CC is not controlled or at least slowed a great deal..

So the past events and the current problem are far from the same thing..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

son of witless wrote:

You had better flee the scene of the crime now bec... (show quote)

Nothing is certain, but the trend is very obvious.. more bad, more often... look outside..

Measurable conditions change over just a few years..

Result of action.. I go back to the past and see positive results..

The reduction of the ozone hole.. it took 30 years but did get positive results from the action we )mankind) took..

so, now we can do nothing and you right wingers can all die knowing the world is holding onto your scam idea and nothing changes, or we can do a number of things. from dealing with trash, ( more a cosmetic issue than anything) to changing as much energy use as possable to renewable s and let the fossil fuel become as small as can be..

It is not a simple problem where we can find one thing to do and quickly solve the world wide problem.. Maybe some already existing events will never be cured..

the rain forest in South America or the warm waters off Australia which have nearly killed off the Tasmania fishing industry.. the tick problem in Minnesota...

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

lindajoy wrote:

Propaganda will do that for some~~ Nature of the b... (show quote)

wonderful picture....

Rose42

permafrost wrote:

Nearly the only ones clinging to the tails of trumpdom are his orange based cult members..

The proportion of Americans who are "alarmed" by global warming tripled over the last five years and is now at an all-time high, a new survey shows.

Almost 6 in 10 Americans are either "alarmed" or "concerned" by global warming, marking what researchers say is a major shift in public perception of the issue.
The survey was conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, which together have tracked Americans' views on climate change since 2008.

As recently as 2014, the percentage of Americans categorized as "dismissive" of global warming was roughly the same as those who were "alarmed" -- around 11 to 12%.
But in the years since, the ranks of the "dismissive" -- those who believe global warming is not happening or caused by humans -- has fallen to just 10%.
Over the same time, the "alarmed" group -- people who are most worried about global warming and support measures to reduce heat-trapping carbon pollution -- grew to 31% of those surveyed, and today outnumber the dismissive crowd by more than 3-to-1.
The findings show that as the global climate changes rapidly, a growing proportion of Americans view the climate crisis as an actual crisis.
This new urgency felt my many Americans stands in sharp contrast to the policies of the Trump administration, which has rolled back dozens of environmental regulations, many of which were aimed at curbing climate change.

As for what could be behind the shift, Leiserowitz says there are a number of likely factors.

One, he says, is the science.
"The reports from the scientific community have become ever more dire," he said, pointing to the alarming United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018 report that showed the window to stem catastrophic climate change is rapidly closing as one example.
Another reason is that political leaders are talking about the issue more, and polls have shown that tackling climate change is now a top issue for many Democratic voters.

Nearly the only ones clinging to the tails of trum... (show quote)

The title isn’t logical as it applies to millions of people. How is that ‘isolated’?

Many on rhe left don’t believe it either.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Zemirah wrote:

Orange is now the new black..., br br Never have ... (show quote)

While I love the color Orange, it is the deliberate refusal of the right wing to allow facts into the thick skulls they all pretend to have.. I know from normal conversation that it must be willful ignorance not stupidity that the same BS keeps getting posted by the orange cult members..

refusing to address the obvious and supporting the most diabolical of policy to the determent of us all but the money loving crowd who now loot our nation..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Rose42 wrote:

The title isn’t logical as it applies to millions of people. How is that ‘isolated’?

Many on rhe left don’t believe it either.

compare the ever growing number of believers and the hangers on who pretend nothing is going wrong..

son of witless

permafrost wrote:

As you say, we can not know if any effort helps to... (show quote)

" As you say, we can not know if any effort helps to dodge such a huge event.. so what is wrong with doing the good work and then, knowing the right wing you could and would crow that we never had an issue at all . how could anyone tell you otherwise.. but still you do not want any effort to be made.. strange group of non doers over on the right.. "

I am sorry. Your wording is a little confusing. I can only infer that you mistyped a little. What I guess you are saying is that why not do the carbon reduction because it can't hurt and might do some good. Is that it ?

Well if I am mistaken please take the time and trouble to set me right. But to answer what I believe you mean. The problem is that there is a real cost to reducing our carbon foot print. Fossil fuels make life for all of us affordable and - - - - really good.

Even you. Without using a lot of fossil fuels and emitting copious amounts of carbon, 'your' life, your standard of living will be going down, a lot.

Now you might say that you are willing to make that sacrifice. You might also say that your fellow American Citizens should be willing to make that sacrifice. We still on the same page ?

Well I think I am asking a valid question. That question is, will reducing carbon emissions do anything to stop or reverse Global Warming ? My follow up question is, can we measure that improvement if there is one ?

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

son of witless wrote:

To repeat my fraking question. If we do everything the global Warming believers want, will it work ?

Simple question. I don't know why no one on your side seems to be able to answer it.

The obvious is to look at all these third world countries the lyin UN was to help with the billions they have raked in~~ do you see any change?? How about the Paris Summit that was going to help so many countries~~ do you see or hear of any change?? No, of course not... Do we get audit results of the UN supposed funding?? Do we know who they helped if any and if so just exactly what they have done, are doubg or any headway made?? No, of course not~~ Now, do you wonder why??

son of witless

lindajoy wrote:

The obvious is to look at all these third world countries the lyin UN was to help with the billions they have raked in~~ do you see any change?? How about the Paris Summit that was going to help so many countries~~ do you see or hear of any change?? No, of course not... Do we get audit results of the UN supposed funding?? Do we know who they helped if any and if so just exactly what they have done, are doubg or any headway made?? No, of course not~~ Now, do you wonder why??

Anytime someone expends great amounts of money they demand an accounting as to where the money went and whether it worked. Global Warmers cannot answer the most basic of questions regarding whether the $ Trillions they will require to reduce Carbon emissions will have any effect at all.

I submit there is no way to measure the effects of reducing carbon. If there is no way to know if what you are doing is working, then you should not do it.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

permafrost wrote:

Nearly the only ones clinging to the tails of trumpdom are his orange based cult members..

The proportion of Americans who are "alarmed" by global warming tripled over the last five years and is now at an all-time high, a new survey shows.

Almost 6 in 10 Americans are either "alarmed" or "concerned" by global warming, marking what researchers say is a major shift in public perception of the issue.
The survey was conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, which together have tracked Americans' views on climate change since 2008.

As recently as 2014, the percentage of Americans categorized as "dismissive" of global warming was roughly the same as those who were "alarmed" -- around 11 to 12%.
But in the years since, the ranks of the "dismissive" -- those who believe global warming is not happening or caused by humans -- has fallen to just 10%.
Over the same time, the "alarmed" group -- people who are most worried about global warming and support measures to reduce heat-trapping carbon pollution -- grew to 31% of those surveyed, and today outnumber the dismissive crowd by more than 3-to-1.
The findings show that as the global climate changes rapidly, a growing proportion of Americans view the climate crisis as an actual crisis.
This new urgency felt my many Americans stands in sharp contrast to the policies of the Trump administration, which has rolled back dozens of environmental regulations, many of which were aimed at curbing climate change.

As for what could be behind the shift, Leiserowitz says there are a number of likely factors.

One, he says, is the science.
"The reports from the scientific community have become ever more dire," he said, pointing to the alarming United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018 report that showed the window to stem catastrophic climate change is rapidly closing as one example.
Another reason is that political leaders are talking about the issue more, and polls have shown that tackling climate change is now a top issue for many Democratic voters.

Nearly the only ones clinging to the tails of trum... (show quote)

Your first sentence belies the rest of your narrative. There is a big difference between "alarmed" and "concerned". "Concerned" would indicate that more information is needed.

As far as the "alarmed" you state that "people who are most worried about global warming and support measures to reduce heat-trapping carbon pollution -- grew to 31%". That leaves 69% that don't believe in man made global climate change or need more information. 69% must also include a large number of people that would vote democrat.

So how many of that "alarmed" group support the radical social and economic changes being proposed by the Democratic candidates and the "green new deal"? I would bet a very small percent, maybe 1 or 2 in 10 of that "alarmed" group, that, once they become aware of how radical the "green new deal" is and how little it has to do with "climate change" and how much it has to do with "social justice" and global wealth redistribution, would support it. That's 3% to 6% of the overall population at best that support a 100 trillion dollar proposal that would bankrupt the USA and forever alter our society. Yet all the democratic candidates support "the green new deal" and 42 democrat senators refuse to vote against it.

The USA along with 20 other countries have lead the way in green house gas reductions. Few believe we shouldn't be concerned about carbon emissions from an environmental standpoint. However, most are not convinced that carbon emissions are the only contributor or even the main contributor to "climate changes". However, IF, and that's a big IF, carbon emissions are the main contributor to "climate change", without the rest of the globe coming along, what the USA does will be meaningless.

The whole "man made climate change" argument doesn't appear to be based on science. It appears to be based on statistics. The interpretation of statistics that is based on presumptions. One presumption being that the current global warming is caused by the industrial revolution rather than marking of the end of the "little ice age" which ended in the mid 1800's. Man made climate change" is a theory. Not proven science. Or, perhaps the industrial revolution saved us from a much longer deeper ice age. Who knows. Certainly starting from a low point in average temperatures at the end of the little ice age distorts the true amount of temperature increase and the cause.

If we destroyed the entire US industrial complex "climate change" would still exist. If we eliminated every American "climate change" would still exist. If we eliminated every human from the globe "climate change" would still exist.

debeda

Strycker wrote:

Your first sentence belies the rest of your narrative. There is a big difference between "alarmed" and "concerned". "Concerned" would indicate that more information is needed.

As far as the "alarmed" you state that "people who are most worried about global warming and support measures to reduce heat-trapping carbon pollution -- grew to 31%". That leaves 69% that don't believe in man made global climate change or need more information. 69% must also include a large number of people that would vote democrat.

So how many of that "alarmed" group support the radical social and economic changes being proposed by the Democratic candidates and the "green new deal"? I would bet a very small percent, maybe 1 or 2 in 10 of that "alarmed" group, that, once they become aware of how radical the "green new deal" is and how little it has to do with "climate change" and how much it has to do with "social justice" and global wealth redistribution, would support it. That's 3% to 6% of the overall population at best that support a 100 trillion dollar proposal that would bankrupt the USA and forever alter our society. Yet all the democratic candidates support "the green new deal" and 42 democrat senators refuse to vote against it.

The USA along with 20 other countries have lead the way in green house gas reductions. Few believe we shouldn't be concerned about carbon emissions from an environmental standpoint. However, most are not convinced that carbon emissions are the only contributor or even the main contributor to "climate changes". However, IF, and that's a big IF, carbon emissions are the main contributor to "climate change", without the rest of the globe coming along, what the USA does will be meaningless.

The whole "man made climate change" argument doesn't appear to be based on science. It appears to be based on statistics. The interpretation of statistics that is based on presumptions. One presumption being that the current global warming is caused by the industrial revolution rather than marking of the end of the "little ice age" which ended in the mid 1800's. Man made climate change" is a theory. Not proven science. Or, perhaps the industrial revolution saved us from a much longer deeper ice age. Who knows. Certainly starting from a low point in average temperatures at the end of the little ice age distorts the true amount of temperature increase and the cause.

If we destroyed the entire US industrial complex "climate change" would still exist. If we eliminated every American "climate change" would still exist. If we eliminated every human from the globe "climate change" would still exist.

Your first sentence belies the rest of your narrat... (show quote)