The question isn't about whether or not climate changes, this is another canard thrown out by global warming deniers. The issue right now is human forced change that is occurring in such a way that entire important ecosystems will no longer remain viable which at some point will lead to a large scale ecological collapse. Climate change is just one significant human impact on the natural world that we all depend on for our survival.The natural world was changed by the humans. And has been for a very long time. Mankind has not only changed the natural plants that we depend on. But also has changed most of the animals that populate the earth. Point being, human impact started in pre-history and increases with the increase in population. I don’t see this “large scale ecological collapse" you are talking about except in the jumps that happen in the cooling cycles. So as long as we are not cooling, there will not be any large scale ecological collapses. As far as depending on the natural world for survival, we stopped doing that back in the B.C.’s.
No we don't. Where does that come from? Can you explain the projected temps for 150ppm What life forms are we talking about. What's it got to do with today's reality of skyrocketing our (greenhouse gases driven) atmospheric insulation? And that it is us human's 100% responsible for that.If the vegetation dies off at 150 ppm then the food chain is broken. Think about it. At 150 ppm’s there is hardly any carbon for the plants to breath. Now it is understood that the vegetation doesn’t go extinct, the term is used to simplify the idea that while the stomata will keep the plants living, the production is drop to the point of no value. Today the world gets 90% of our plant protein from 104 plants, none of which are natural. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf https://sites.google.com/a/sheffield.ac.uk/djb-group/ecosystem-co2-starvation/joe-quirk http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/07/13/greenpeace-cofounder-dr-patrick-moore-thank-goodness-we-came-along-reversed-150-millionyear-trend-of-reduced-co2-levels-in-global-atmosphere-long-live-the-humans/ I tried to copy and paste a couple of charts, but had no luck. It is worth noting that past CO2 levels were around 1500 ppm. It is accepted by most people that higher CO2 levels help create more crops and faster growing crops. http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?MenuItemID=103 CO2 has ranged from 7,000 ppm in the Cambrian period to 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation. Point being, you say we are skyrocketing our CO2 levels. And I agree, but let’s view all the data. In the overall earth timelines we are dangerously low right now.
Like I’ve said and will repeat, it doesn’t matter how much concrete evidence is presented in an entirely rational manner, climate change deniers will always pretend to punch holes in it, because that’s their only agenda. And they’re good at it which means they also have a very good grasp of the actual evidence, they just don’t care. In the same way the tobacco lobby did for decades and is still trying to do.
It’s not like this hasn’t happened before ending millions of lives before their time and now is placing millions of species at risk as we steadily drive much of the planet into conditions where the biological viability is on a steep downward curve.
So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a "grassroots" movement - one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight "overregulation". It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one "unfounded fear" among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up "a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address credibility of government's scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states."
By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, "to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors"; to "link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct' products"; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with "broader questions about government research and regulations" - such as "global warming", "nuclear waste disposal" and "biotechnology". APCO would engage in the "intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science".In the end it's much "easier" to win a debate when you're almost completely unencumbered by a conscience or any real sense of morality. And what else can you call a campaign that has known from the start it's based on falsehoods that will ultimately take the lives of millions - more likely billions if allowed to go far enough - of people. In exactly the same way the tobacco lobby did for decades in attacking the science behind serious and often terminal illness connected with their products. Because it's exactly the same campaign and involved some of the same people like Fred Seitz and Fred Singer. There's simply no morality or even sanity in engaging in a campaign based entirely on known falsehoods in a effort to maintain a status quo that is deeply unequal in the first place. And now threatens to end the very civilization that gives any human or associated activity context. It's the equivalent of a virus taking over the higher functions of a organism to maintain steady growth with no consideration at all for the ultimate well being of that organism.
You lie ! >:-( You say those words then totally ignore their implications like it's all flown right over your head, like some oblivious innocent, but you aren't innocent one bit.It's the bait and switch game that climate change deniers have become very skilled at. Stage #1. - "Please tell me all about this global warming and climate change stuff." Stage #2. - After the best evidence and likely outcomes has been presented. - "Boy are you an idiot, this is what's really going on, I left the evidence in my other pants, I'll present it later" Stage #3. - When they still haven't presented any real evidence and are called on it they; Return to Stage #1. This has been going on for decades and is an entirely intentional approach to limiting any actions or regulations that will negatively impact the fossil fuel or associated sectors. And it is based directly on the same campaign to do exactly the same thing by the tobacco lobby for decades.
Like I've said and will repeat, it doesn't matter how much concrete evidence is presented in an entirely rational manner, climate change deniers will always pretend to punch holes in it, because that's their only agenda. And they're good at it which means they also have a very good grasp of the actual evidence, they just don't care. In the same way the tobacco lobby did for decades and is still trying to do. It's not like this hasn't happened before ending millions of lives before their time and now is placing millions of species at risk as we steadily drive much of the planet into conditions where the biological viability is on a steep downward curve. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2Climate change deniers can come in many forms. Someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic would also be denying the true facts of climate change and the overall effects on people and the earth. History has shown us that even without the human interference that there has always been extinctions at the peak of the climate cycles. No one that I know of on this site has ever denied the CO2 is warming the earth. Yet, DougC will bring up decade old news articles trying to say that this is a problem that people don’t understand. There has been a lot of data in the last ten years that has been able to balance the facts on both sides of the issues. A road for understanding is being built by new data collections and computer models. Once the baseline is established the effects of humans on climate will be able to be measured and steps can be put into place to reach a reasonable goal. On MS Windows 10 there is an explorer window that appears. From that window you can pick the NEWS window and it will open up the latest news from around the world. The TOP STORIES are the main news stories from around the world that people are interested in. Yet climate change will hardly every be posted in the top stories or other news headlines. Yet you are saying that a billion lives will be lost and millions of species will be lost and civilization may come to an end. Yet it is not making the news anywhere in the world. The public seems to be more interested in what bathrooms transsexuals can use more than climate change. Why do you think that is?So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a "grassroots" movement - one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight "overregulation". It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one "unfounded fear" among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up "a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address credibility of government's scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states."By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, "to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors"; to "link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct' products"; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with "broader questions about government research and regulations" - such as "global warming", "nuclear waste disposal" and "biotechnology". APCO would engage in the "intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science".In the end it's much "easier" to win a debate when you're almost completely unencumbered by a conscience or any real sense of morality. And what else can you call a campaign that has known from the start it's based on falsehoods that will ultimately take the lives of millions - more likely billions if allowed to go far enough - of people. In exactly the same way the tobacco lobby did for decades in attacking the science behind serious and often terminal illness connected with their products. Because it's exactly the same campaign and involved some of the same people like Fred Seitz and Fred Singer. There's simply no morality or even sanity in engaging in a campaign based entirely on known falsehoods in a effort to maintain a status quo that is deeply unequal in the first place. And now threatens to end the very civilization that gives any human or associated activity context. It's the equivalent of a virus taking over the higher functions of a organism to maintain steady growth with no consideration at all for the ultimate well being of that organism.
On MS Windows 10 there is an explorer window that appears. From that window you can pick the NEWS window and it will open up the latest news from around the world. The TOP STORIES are the main news stories from around the world that people are interested in. Yet climate change will hardly every be posted in the top stories or other news headlines. Yet you are saying that a billion lives will be lost and millions of species will be lost and civilization may come to an end. Yet it is not making the news anywhere in the world. The public seems to be more interested in what bathrooms transsexuals can use more than climate change. Why do you think that is?DougC, you forgot another tactic: The red herring.
DougC, you forgot another tactic: The red herring.Yes, it's the clouds, no now it's the Sun, no now it's ocean current's, no now it's natural climatic cycles we have no control over, no now it's (fill in the blank). The whole point is to keep everybody running in circles so nothing meaningful ever gets done to address the growing catastrophe. And this has been going on for well over a half century when you include the campaign by the tobacco lobby that climate change denial is based on. Entire careers are based on this most destructive of intellectual frauds.
And it’s not like this is taking place without anybody noticing.
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/manufactured-ignorance
Their story begins with what they call the “Tobacco Strategy," the campaign launched in the mid-1950s by cigarette makers to refute and ridicule the evidence linking smoking to mass suffering and death. One might suppose the strategy is connected to global-warming denial purely by analogy—a case of yet another powerful industry trying to stave off regulation by obfuscating—but Oreskes and Conway show that key climate-change denialists actually became masters at doubt-mongering while working for the tobacco industry. Frederick Seitz, for example, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences and ex officio member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, in 1979 was hired by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, makers of Camel cigarettes, to head their Medical Research Committee. A solid-state physicist with Manhattan Project credentials, Seitz was assigned the task of handing out $45 million in research grants to buttress the prestige of tobacco—grants that, as he would later admit, steered clear of anything that might impugn tobacco. “They didn’t want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking," he said in a 2006 interview. Seitz was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over the six years during which he served in this capacity. It was not long thereafter that he and a crew of Cold Warrior colleagues also began denying the reality of human-caused climate change.So whenever you see someone posting in the manner and content of Mike Yohe here, understand where it comes from and what its intent is. In the end it's a megadeath that has already begun, built on top of the millions of people who have died as the result of the earlier tobacco lobby disinformation campaign.
DougC, you forgot another tactic: The red herring.Yes, it's the clouds, no now it's the Sun, no now it's ocean current's, no now it's natural climatic cycles we have no control over, no now it's (fill in the blank). The whole point is to keep everybody running in circles so nothing meaningful ever gets done to address the growing catastrophe. And this has been going on for well over a half century when you include the campaign by the tobacco lobby that climate change denial is based on. Entire careers are based on this most destructive of intellectual frauds. I got into an argument with one of my cousins on FB the other day. He posted some claptrap about climate scientists lying about ocean buoy temperature measurements and changing the data. When I called him out on it he and another cousin went into full attack mode, accusing climatologists of being socialists who want to take over the world, then they got personal in their attacks on me. I've decided to quit communicating with those two as they are immune to facts. You should have seen them melt down last summer when I called out their "America was founded as a Christian nation" bullshit.
I got into an argument with one of my cousins on FB the other day. He posted some claptrap about climate scientists lying about ocean buoy temperature measurements and changing the data. When I called him out on it he and another cousin went into full attack mode, accusing climatologists of being socialists who want to take over the world, then they got personal in their attacks on me. I've decided to quit communicating with those two as they are immune to facts. You should have seen them melt down last summer when I called out their "America was founded as a Christian nation" bullshit.Some people take it very personally when you point out their magical thinking, I have some family members that I will no longer discuss this and many other issues with. Cold hard facts are already colliding with fantasy on a whole bunch of levels globally, we're going to be very lucky to survive this century not just as a modern civilization but as a species I think. Too many people are so committed to holding onto beliefs that are leading to disaster.
And it's not like this is taking place without anybody noticing. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/manufactured-ignoranceIs this the best there is? The author of The Nazi War on Cancer promoting another book by connecting the tobacco industry to global warming.Their story begins with what they call the “Tobacco Strategy," the campaign launched in the mid-1950s by cigarette makers to refute and ridicule the evidence linking smoking to mass suffering and death. One might suppose the strategy is connected to global-warming denial purely by analogy—a case of yet another powerful industry trying to stave off regulation by obfuscating—but Oreskes and Conway show that key climate-change denialists actually became masters at doubt-mongering while working for the tobacco industry. Frederick Seitz, for example, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences and ex officio member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, in 1979 was hired by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, makers of Camel cigarettes, to head their Medical Research Committee. A solid-state physicist with Manhattan Project credentials, Seitz was assigned the task of handing out $45 million in research grants to buttress the prestige of tobacco—grants that, as he would later admit, steered clear of anything that might impugn tobacco. “They didn’t want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking," he said in a 2006 interview. Seitz was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over the six years during which he served in this capacity. It was not long thereafter that he and a crew of Cold Warrior colleagues also began denying the reality of human-caused climate change.So whenever you see someone posting in the manner and content of Mike Yohe here, understand where it comes from and what its intent is. In the end it's a megadeath that has already begun, built on top of the millions of people who have died as the result of the earlier tobacco lobby disinformation campaign.
Is this the best there is? The author of The Nazi War on Cancer promoting another book by connecting the tobacco industry to global warming.You're denying reality again, Mike.
Is this the best there is? The author of The Nazi War on Cancer promoting another book by connecting the tobacco industry to global warming.You're denying reality again, Mike. Darron, is it possible for you to stay with the thought of the question at hand? Your tangent miss-directions are only for your personal pleasure and do nothing for the subject of discussion. I would welcome anything you might have of substance on the issues being discussed, but I don’t see that ever happening. If you care to explain your snide remarks that would be nice. Right now I would have to say that I offend you by down grading the Nazi’s.
Like I've said and will repeat, it doesn't matter how much concrete evidence is presented in an entirely rational manner, climate change deniers will always pretend to punch holes in it, because that's their only agenda. And they're good at it which means they also have a very good grasp of the actual evidence, they just don't care. In the same way the tobacco lobby did for decades and is still trying to do. It's not like this hasn't happened before ending millions of lives before their time and now is placing millions of species at risk as we steadily drive much of the planet into conditions where the biological viability is on a steep downward curve. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2I agree. The Guardian article is very good--and the analogy you draw is correct. LoisSo the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a "grassroots" movement - one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight "overregulation". It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one "unfounded fear" among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up "a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address credibility of government's scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states."By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, "to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors"; to "link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct' products"; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with "broader questions about government research and regulations" - such as "global warming", "nuclear waste disposal" and "biotechnology". APCO would engage in the "intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science".In the end it's much "easier" to win a debate when you're almost completely unencumbered by a conscience or any real sense of morality. And what else can you call a campaign that has known from the start it's based on falsehoods that will ultimately take the lives of millions - more likely billions if allowed to go far enough - of people. In exactly the same way the tobacco lobby did for decades in attacking the science behind serious and often terminal illness connected with their products. Because it's exactly the same campaign and involved some of the same people like Fred Seitz and Fred Singer. There's simply no morality or even sanity in engaging in a campaign based entirely on known falsehoods in a effort to maintain a status quo that is deeply unequal in the first place. And now threatens to end the very civilization that gives any human or associated activity context. It's the equivalent of a virus taking over the higher functions of a organism to maintain steady growth with no consideration at all for the ultimate well being of that organism.
Is this the best there is? The author of The Nazi War on Cancer promoting another book by connecting the tobacco industry to global warming.You're denying reality again, Mike. Darron, is it possible for you to stay with the thought of the question at hand? Your tangent miss-directions are only for your personal pleasure and do nothing for the subject of discussion. I would welcome anything you might have of substance on the issues being discussed, but I don’t see that ever happening. If you care to explain your snide remarks that would be nice. Right now I would have to say that I offend you by down grading the Nazi’s. Have you read Merchants of Doubt? I have. It is very well researched and the conclusions have been backed by other authors. Robert Proctor did not write it, by the way. You should actually read the linked articles before you post your misdirections and ad hominem attacks.
Have you read Merchants of Doubt? I have. It is very well researched and the conclusions have been backed by other authors. Robert Proctor did not write it, by the way. You should actually read the linked articles before you post your misdirections and ad hominem attacks.Well said. http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/ Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway wrote Merchants of Doubt and it is very well researched. Unlike climate change denial which is almost exclusively based on ad hominem and slight of hand to cover up the very well established evidence.
Is this the best there is? The author of The Nazi War on Cancer promoting another book by connecting the tobacco industry to global warming.You're denying reality again, Mike. Darron, is it possible for you to stay with the thought of the question at hand? Your tangent miss-directions are only for your personal pleasure and do nothing for the subject of discussion. I would welcome anything you might have of substance on the issues being discussed, but I don’t see that ever happening. If you care to explain your snide remarks that would be nice. Right now I would have to say that I offend you by down grading the Nazi’s. You've used almost the exact same words to me Mike. Could it be that you are the problem?
You've used almost the exact same words to me Mike. Could it be that you are the problem?As a merchant of doubt there's no question in my mind that he's the problem.
Like I've said and will repeat, it doesn't matter how much concrete evidence is presented in an entirely rational manner, climate change deniers will always pretend to punch holes in it, because that's their only agenda. And they're good at it which means they also......... There's simply no morality or even sanity in engaging in a campaign based entirely on known falsehoods in a effort to maintain a status quo that is deeply unequal in the first place. And now threatens to end the very civilization that gives any human or associated activity context. It's the equivalent of a virus taking over the higher functions of a organism to maintain steady growth with no consideration at all for the ultimate well being of that organism.I agree. The Guardian article is very good--and the analogy you draw is correct. Lois Oh come on now Lois, you have got to be kidding. Surly you can tell the difference between political actions and legal actions. It is totally wrong to embrace those types of articles because it is about as far from the truth as one can get. You’re trying to tell me that the American public was hoax by a group of lobbyist and rich tobacco companies into thinking that tobacco was good for them. Then one day it was proved that the American public had been lied to and tobacco was really bad for them. Wow! To the American public it was about the liberty of freedom of choice. And for the tobacco companies it was a legal battle. In the America I grew up and lived in the people were not that stupid. They knew what was going on. It was a big legal issue. No different than marijuana today. Is marijuana a class one drug? Yes, according to the government it is. But the American public knows better and has known better for forty years now. It is the government that has stopped every effort to bring the issue to the Supreme Court. It is a legal issue just like tobacco was. Now that is a comparison and using real people and not Idiocracy type of Americans.
Oh come on now Lois, you have got to be kidding. Surly you can tell the difference between political actions and legal actions.How about you Mike, Why can't you see that strategically misrepresenting and lying about the established science is the issue?