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.
Once again you're arguing against a straw man. No one said tobacco companies claimed cigarettes were good for you. They fought against the evidence that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. While doing so, though, they promoted cigarettes as "refreshing" and subtly hinted that they were beneficial in an unspecified way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-y_N4u0uRQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1YY5fZtlSM
Then one day it was proved that the American public had been lied to and tobacco was really bad for them. Wow!
Took decades not one day, but that's pretty much how it happened.
To the American public it was about the liberty of freedom of choice. And for the tobacco companies it was a legal battle.
And, as DougC noted, the tobacco companies were using immoral tactics to mislead the public. The Feds finally prevailed in court and forced tobacco companies to put warning labels on cigarettes. That's all. They did not ban tobacco.
In the America I grew up and lived in the people were not that stupid.
Is this the same America that elected St. Ron of Hollywood to two terms as POTUS or a fictional America that exists only in your mind?
They knew what was going on. It was a big legal issue.
And still the tobacco companies spread FUD to fight the warning labels. You really need to read Merchants of Doubt.
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.
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?
I very well could have if you were trying to insinuate as Darron was. Yes, my problem is that I want to stick to the truth and not some popular movement. When I said Trump was a good choice. If you remember I was not very popular on this site. I don’t care for Trump personally, but I go deeper into the fact of what is good for America. And to me the choice is simple, any administration or congress that allows department heads to lie to the American people needs to be replaced. The whole Washington cartel needs to be replaced with people that can be trusted. I back the IPCC and that is not popular on this site either. Mainly because the IPCC is using a scientific approach and is going to take the time to collect and analyze the data. I ask very simple questions on climate change and it pisses people off because they really don’t want to think about how we are going to fix the problems. They want to stay in the Al Gore time period and talk about the enigma of weather. And now they want to mix the tobacco legal battles into the equation, if you can’t find anything wrong with the facts, then go after the messenger delivering the facts. I don’t know how much you have followed this post, but I ask Doug four simple questions and this started a song and dance routine. And of course Darron, as he always is circling and trying to make a carcass out of issues.
I have no idea where you stand on Climate Change Lausten. Are you buying into the end of mankind thinking or the secret conspiracy taking place? What are your views?
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.
Once again you're arguing against a straw man. No one said tobacco companies claimed cigarettes were good for you. They fought against the evidence that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. While doing so, though, they promoted cigarettes as "refreshing" and subtly hinted that they were beneficial in an unspecified way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-y_N4u0uRQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1YY5fZtlSM
Then one day it was proved that the American public had been lied to and tobacco was really bad for them. Wow!
Took decades not one day, but that's pretty much how it happened.
To the American public it was about the liberty of freedom of choice. And for the tobacco companies it was a legal battle.
And, as DougC noted, the tobacco companies were using immoral tactics to mislead the public. The Feds finally prevailed in court and forced tobacco companies to put warning labels on cigarettes. That's all. They did not ban tobacco.
In the America I grew up and lived in the people were not that stupid.
Is this the same America that elected St. Ron of Hollywood to two terms as POTUS or a fictional America that exists only in your mind?
They knew what was going on. It was a big legal issue.
And still the tobacco companies spread FUD to fight the warning labels. You really need to read Merchants of Doubt.
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.
Another red herring. Try to stay on subject.
Thanks for posting your views. When I know what you think, then we can move forward whether we are in agreement or not. I got to say in my lifetime if have never heard one person say that smoking was good for you. And warning labels, they put warning labels on everything, even kids toys. That is a legal issue. Where we differ the most is in your St. Ron statement. I think you feel the America people are stupid. I think they are smart over all, but are to busy with everyday life to understand all the issues and we have to put trust in people to take care and watch out for the people but have been duped by the greedy and the cons and are tired of it.
Thanks for posting your views. When I know what you think, then we can move forward whether we are in agreement or not. I got to say in my lifetime if have never heard one person say that smoking was good for you. And warning labels, they put warning labels on everything, even kids toys. That is a legal issue. Where we differ the most is in your St. Ron statement. I think you feel the America people are stupid. I think they are smart over all, but are to busy with everyday life to understand all the issues and we have to put trust in people to take care and watch out for the people but have been duped by the greedy and the cons and are tired of it.
You just have to look at this crap to understand how these deniers work, it's ignoring the fact that the science strongly links tobacco products with serious health issues and death on a massive scale. But this "person" is trying to connect them to the same risk level as toys.
http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/whatsinit.htm
I guess if you smoked toys that had 4,000 chemicals, over 40 of which are known to cause cancer and 400 that are toxic then this would have any sense or relevance.
He and the entire denial movement depend on this kind of insidious distraction and distortion of the evidence on a constant basis.
The one thing positive you can say about this poster is that his work here - and that's what it is - illustrates just how this fraud works. And how completely cynical and detached from any real human feeling it is, all our lives are being negatively impacted by the kind of business as usual that this sick campaign enables, the eventual survival of our species is now in serious question because of it.
And they still continue to engage in this deadly fraud...
When I know what you think, then we can move forward,
Why can't you see that strategically misrepresenting and lying about the established science is the issue?
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?
When I know what you think, then we can move forward,
Why can't you see that strategically misrepresenting and lying about the established science is the issue?
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?
What is your point? I agree with and back the IPCC. Why are you saying that the IPCC is not using science in their methods? Right now The IPCC is waiting for the baseline to be established. I like the method of thinking used by John Holdren. But so far think the IPCC is on the correct path. In the end, I bet the world will in up shooting for between 500 and 600 ppm’s with a downward trend to 400 in the next thousand years as the earth cycle cools. But that is at least five years away or after the computer models are working before we reach point we even start talking about what is best for the earth.
I see where you went and posted to criticize John Holdren on this site. Didn’t get much response did you. Now you’re back picking on me because I am the only game in town. Truth of the matter is that your and Doug’s techniques are probably doing more harm than good for the IPCC and the earth. Sounding like a couple of spoiled brats that are whining because they are not getting their way. When you don’t get your pat on the head, you resort to name calling and scream louder. I realize it is not just me, it is anyone that doesn’t buy into your method of bitching. On the flip side I got to say you are one of the few who will take a stance on where the earth is at the climate cycle. I think you need to take another look at what John is saying. There are some tough choices that are going to have to be made. And there are going to be things that will happen that we will not like. But there may also be some benefits to be made.
I agree with and back the IPCC. Why are you saying that the IPCC is not using science in their methods? Right now The IPCC is waiting for the baseline to be established.
The IPCC has stated unequivocally that there is a 95 percent certainty mankind is causing current global warming. That's as good as it gets in science, yet you keep harping about 100 percent agreement and a legal definition of a baseline. You're fooling yourself but not fooling us.
What is your point? I agree with and back the IPCC. Why are you saying that the IPCC is not using science in their methods? Right now The IPCC is waiting for the baseline to be established. I like the method of thinking used by John Holdren. But so far think the IPCC is on the correct path. In the end, I bet the world will in up shooting for between 500 and 600 ppm’s with a downward trend to 400 in the next thousand years as the earth cycle cools. But that is at least five years away or after the computer models are working before we reach point we even start talking about what is best for the earth.
I see where you went and posted to criticize John Holdren on this site. Didn’t get much response did you. Now you’re back picking on me because I am the only game in town. Truth of the matter is that your and Doug’s techniques are probably doing more harm than good for the IPCC and the earth. Sounding like a couple of spoiled brats that are whining because they are not getting their way. When you don’t get your pat on the head, you resort to name calling and scream louder. I realize it is not just me, it is anyone that doesn’t buy into your method of bitching. On the flip side I got to say you are one of the few who will take a stance on where the earth is at the climate cycle. I think you need to take another look at what John is saying. There are some tough choices that are going to have to be made. And there are going to be things that will happen that we will not like. But there may also be some benefits to be made.
Once again more denial disinformation.
The IPCC isn't shooting for targets of 500 to 600 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide, catastrophic climate change has already begun which can be seen in the large scale breakdown of the cryosphere including the ice sheets, wars and civil conflicts with a climate change components, extreme weather events that are getting more common and more.
At the insane levels of atmospheric CO2 this poster is trying to present as normal any chance of mitigating accelerating catastrophe becomes impossible, this is the kind of scientific fraud that has been around since the Western Fuels Association and its front the Greening Earth society were trying to claim that the Earth will be a tropical paradise if carbon dioxide levels were at 1,000ppm ignoring completely all the other incredibly negative impacts of doing that like the likely extinction of most life on the planet that isn't evolved for those conditions.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Greening_Earth_Society
The group, which appears to have collapsed in 2005, claimed that greenhouse gas emissions are a good thing because they will lead to greater plant growth and a greener environment. It claims that this viewpoint constitutes a "scientifically-sound perspective on the increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Sound familiar, this poster is still engaging in climate change denial fraud that has long since shown to be just that and was funded and controlled by the coal sector.
In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.
When I know what you think, then we can move forward,
Why can't you see that strategically misrepresenting and lying about the established science is the issue?
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?
Ha that's funny.
You call it name calling because I want you to make a stand on the acceptability about laying about serious science.
You can't do it.
Speaking volumes - but you feel compelled to call me the "brat" So much for your presumed highbrow morality and air of being above the slander.
Saying you agree with the IPCC and then ignoring what they is bull shit - and you are a master of it.
Now you’re back picking on me {cry me a river :kiss:} because I am the only game in town.
…
On the flip side I got to say you are one of the few who will take a stance on where the earth is at the climate cycle. I think you need to take another look at what John is saying.
Like what!?
Once again vague handwaving - nothing specific, nothing concrete -
What specifically about Holdren's statements back then or today are you ready to discuss - but take it beyond vague insinuations, or what someone else claims he said. - have anything specific?
I agree with and back the IPCC. Why are you saying that the IPCC is not using science in their methods? Right now The IPCC is waiting for the baseline to be established.
The IPCC has stated unequivocally that there is a 95 percent certainty mankind is causing current global warming. That's as good as it gets in science, yet you keep harping about 100 percent agreement and a legal definition of a baseline. You're fooling yourself but not fooling us.
Stop making up stuff to justify your thinking. I have always been 100% sure that mankind is causing part of the global warming along with the Milankovitch cycles. I have never said otherwise either. But how much is caused by mankind and how much is caused by the Milankovitch cycles is the unknown. Once the baselines are established then we will know. It is much better to deal with real facts then guess work that causes endless arguments. And yes I mean a baseline built and agreed upon by the computer models, not one that a guy made up to sell a book. One that would be upheld in a court case on climate change. Then we will be able to begin fixing the problems. As far as the IPCC, they have instructed the scientists to never use or say 100%. Due to the public argumental factor.
Good to see that you have made it to the first step. Now the problem seems to be that people can’t get to the second step. So what are you going to do, spend another couple of years on debating the CO2 blanket because you are unable to move forward?
What is your point? I agree with and back the IPCC. Why are you saying that the IPCC is not using science in their methods? Right now The IPCC is waiting for the baseline to be established. I like the method of thinking used by John Holdren. But so far think the IPCC is on the correct path. In the end, I bet the world will in up shooting for between 500 and 600 ppm’s with a downward trend to 400 in the next thousand years as the earth cycle cools. But that is at least five years away or after the computer models are working before we reach point we even start talking about what is best for the earth.
I see where you went and posted to criticize John Holdren on this site. Didn’t get much response did you. Now you’re back picking on me because I am the only game in town. Truth of the matter is that your and Doug’s techniques are probably doing more harm than good for the IPCC and the earth. Sounding like a couple of spoiled brats that are whining because they are not getting their way. When you don’t get your pat on the head, you resort to name calling and scream louder. I realize it is not just me, it is anyone that doesn’t buy into your method of bitching. On the flip side I got to say you are one of the few who will take a stance on where the earth is at the climate cycle. I think you need to take another look at what John is saying. There are some tough choices that are going to have to be made. And there are going to be things that will happen that we will not like. But there may also be some benefits to be made.
Once again more denial disinformation.
The IPCC isn't shooting for targets of 500 to 600 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide, catastrophic climate change has already begun which can be seen in the large scale breakdown of the cryosphere including the ice sheets, wars and civil conflicts with a climate change components, extreme weather events that are getting more common and more.
At the insane levels of atmospheric CO2 this poster is trying to present as normal any chance of mitigating accelerating catastrophe becomes impossible, this is the kind of scientific fraud that has been around since the Western Fuels Association and its front the Greening Earth society were trying to claim that the Earth will be a tropical paradise if carbon dioxide levels were at 1,000ppm ignoring completely all the other incredibly negative impacts of doing that like the likely extinction of most life on the planet that isn't evolved for those conditions.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Greening_Earth_Society
The group, which appears to have collapsed in 2005, claimed that greenhouse gas emissions are a good thing because they will lead to greater plant growth and a greener environment. It claims that this viewpoint constitutes a "scientifically-sound perspective on the increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Sound familiar, this poster is still engaging in climate change denial fraud that has long since shown to be just that and was funded and controlled by the coal sector.
No, you are right the IPCC is not shooting for 500 to 600 ppm. I said, “I bet", which means that I was making a prediction. Stop being so nit-picky. The IPCC has set amounts for policy and political reasons, but their actions have been to create more methods and spending on data gathering for the computer models. When are you going to start thinking in the real world reality instead of looking at the world as a big conspiracy theory? Unless you have a secret that you are keeping from the rest of the world, how is the CO2 levels going to stop rising and go down?
........
On the flip side I got to say you are one of the few who will take a stance on where the earth is at the climate cycle. I think you need to take another look at what John is saying.
Like what!?
Once again vague handwaving - nothing specific, nothing concrete -
What specifically about Holdren's statements back then or today are you ready to discuss - but take it beyond vague insinuations, or what someone else claims he said. - have anything specific?
I think you found out that no one want to get into you bashing Holdren. John points out that we need to find a level of CO2 that is realistic and maybe a level higher than what we have today could be good for food production and livable for humans. And to me, that sounds about right.
You know the charts that are never posted are the charts that show future populations and energy consumption along with CO2 emissions. Add that to all the countries that we are trying to industrialize which in turn raises their CO2 emissions.
I have stated where I am at with CC. What I think should be done. And what we are going to have to accept. I have no idea where you are on the issues other than you think they are a big conspiracy.
I think you found out that no one want to get into you bashing Holdren. John points out that we need to find a level of CO2 that is realistic and maybe a level higher than what we have today could be good for food production and livable for humans. And to me, that sounds about right.
We don't want to hear what you think John Holdren said - that's worthless heresy
Share his actual quotes along with the citations so we can read what HE said!
I think you found out that no one want to get into you bashing Holdren. John points out that we need to find a level of CO2 that is realistic and maybe a level higher than what we have today could be good for food production and livable for humans. And to me, that sounds about right.
We don't want to hear what you think John Holdren said - that's worthless heresy
Share his actual quotes along with the citations so we can read what HE said!
Sorry, you’re not going to get your bait and switch. I’m sticking to the general thoughts and not going to get into your denial process. I’m not saying that I would not reconsider your request if your arguments could move past the beating of the dead horse of the CO2 blanket and on to where the science is at in this decade.
Is it possible in all your research on the subject matter to lay out a projection that is reasonable to accomplish and has a proven track record in history of success in the social and political world. Until you take those steps, I don’t think you will ever understand where John is coming from.
I think you found out that no one want to get into you bashing Holdren. John points out that we need to find a level of CO2 that is realistic and maybe a level higher than what we have today could be good for food production and livable for humans. And to me, that sounds about right.
I think you found out that no one want to get into you bashing Holdren. John points out that we need to find a level of CO2 that is realistic and maybe a level higher than what we have today could be good for food production and livable for humans. And to me, that sounds about right.
So, 350 doesn't do it for you huh?]
At this time I could not say for sure. I have read several articles by researchers warning of jump in the cooling cycle. They are saying decades is all it has taken in the past to have drastic climate change in the cooling cycle. Put another way, the cooling cycle takes 10,000 years to cool and the warming cycle takes 90,000 to rewarm the planet. One would think the cooling would take place sort of evenly over the 10,000 year cycle. But we are getting warnings that may not be the case.
Point being the CO2 level may best serve mankind by using a sliding scale based upon the actions of the cooling cycle.
That said Dr. Hansen is just talking about today’s needs. And I am not sure that we maybe should be combining the oceans CO2 levels in this number. Dr. Hansen is just talking atmosphere levels.
Dr. Hansen’s article was published seven years ago. And states that “unless we are able to rapidly turn that around and return to below 350 ppm this century……" So far we have not been able to slow the CO2 input. Dr. Hansen is like all the other scientists in saying we have a problem and not stating any method of fixing the problem.
pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
For people to just say, “WE NEED TO STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS", like the 350 web site. That is thrown into the basket with, we need to stop smoking and drinking sugar drinks. The problem can’t be fixed by words alone. What seems to be occurring here with human CO2 dumping is what is called an undecidable problem. There is no yes-or-no answer that is going to have good results. History has shown us that mankind has to wait until the catastrophe before the changes can be made. In Mesopotamia just after the cuneiform writing system was developed there was a shortage of wood. In the cuneiform house rental contracts that are found today, when they rented a house you had to supply your own doors and window frames. Then in Rome, they had wiped out all the forests all the way to the Alps for fuel. What Rome did was to open city bakeries and supply all the bread for free.
The only way that I can see fixing the problem is for the government to fund a massive worldwide geothermal research and building projects. This could eliminate the coal use. Then build road systems that that promote motorcycle and electric transportation. And still all these actions may prove to be useless without population control.
I have read several articles by researchers warning of jump in the cooling cycle.
Show us this alleged research. No more unsubstantiated "I read an article..." arguments. You have a history of making stuff up, such as the claim that past CO2 levels have been 300 times current levels. BTW, you still haven't acknowledged you were wrong about that.
Dr. Hansen is like all the other scientists in saying we have a problem and not stating any method of fixing the problem.
So what is your point? Scientists not making policy decisions proves the scientists wrong? Wait a minute. I thought you supported thy IPCC. Their position is the scientists present the science and governments make policy decisions.
That said, plenty of scientists are speaking up and warning we need to make dramatic changes and make them soon. Remember that podcast I recommend you listen to? Both scientists warned of dire consequences if we do not curb our carbon emissions drastically and quickly. I suppose you'll demand a legal definition of "drastic" before we do anything.
Since Mike is apparently ignoring the thread DougC started about metadata I'll reproduce my last post in that thread here:
This just in:
Study: humans have caused all the global warming since the 1950s]
Note this section:
The study considered temperature changes for the period of 1951–2010. During that time, global surface temperatures warmed about 0.65°C. During that same period, their statistical approach which combines observations and climate models outputs found that humans have caused 0.67 ± 0.12°C warming, while natural factors have had essentially no effect on global temperatures (-0.01 ± 0.02°C).
This result is similar to the conclusion in the latest IPCC report:
"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together …
The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period ...
The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C."
This refute's Mikes assertion that he backs the IPCC findings.