Let me break this down in the simplest terms. Global Warming is part of Mother Nature. Climate Change is all man made. Global Warming is indisputable scientific facts that can be measured and established. Climate Change is nothing more than observation science with no indisputable datum points or baselinesWhatever you say, Humpty. Meanwhile, the rest of the world uses those terms interchangeably. We must all be insane to not see things your way.
Let me break this down in the simplest terms. Global Warming is part of Mother Nature. Climate Change is all man made. Global Warming is indisputable scientific facts that can be measured and established. Climate Change is nothing more than observation science with no indisputable datum points or baselinesWhatever you say, Humpty. Meanwhile, the rest of the world uses those terms interchangeably. We must all be insane to not see things your way. Yea, you are right. I thought they both meant the same thing too, when they came out with the term Climate Change. But, none of the reports were making any sense until I learn the difference. At first I thought it was unnecessary and awkward. But now I understand it does make sense and helps clear some of the confusion.
Understand the issues and what we have to deal with. Then construct a plan of action. When I have ask you what you would do to fix the climate change problem. You really don’t have any answer that is even remotely workable. For someone that is so opinionated and has done so much research I find that disheartening.Understanding the situation has nothing to do with finding a solution. You approach this as though you were writing a novel - where events and facts must be moulded to the writer's desires. Understanding what our planet is doing - is something all together different from finding a solution.
Though, that's actually quite straightforward and has been known for a half century, at least. PUT LESS GHGs INTO OUR ATMOSPHERE ! ! !If you understood what was going on you'd appreciated why some of us have been concerned about this for decades, no solution, simply an awareness that this global warming world was a place we wanted to keep as far away as possible, and as long as possible. Instead humanity took the course of peddle to the metal, and will we, well the children of us baby boomers, will pay dearly for that grievous stupidity.
So, it doesn't change the central thesis that you keep trying to introduce here that human forced climate change isn't something to be very concerned about and addressed right away. Or that you're not part of an extensive and incredibly well funded campaign of disinformation on the subject that stretches back decades. Who cares what someone who's most likely being paid to lie on an issue that is already killing vast numbers of people based on a previous campaign that did the same thinks about anything related to reality. We'll come to you when we want fiction not facts.You are totally wrong in all directions in the above statement. Let me try and explain again for the hundredth time. If you want to accomplish any task or project. The fastest way to get this done is to do it right the first time. Not to do the task over and over again and keep spinning your wheels in the same spot. So far, you have bored the hell out of the public, burnt your bridges and used up half your gas. Out of the hundreds of books that have been written on your crusade, Al Gore’s book the An Inconvenient Truth is the only one that the public understands and was interested in. And that is a decade old. Your energy is spent on side track issues that go nowhere and accomplish nothing. Who gives a shit about Exxon spending money on deniers? I don’t. Exxon is no different than any other business, government agency or public institution. And the sooner you learn that, the more productive you will be. Do shut up, I don't take instruction from psychopaths.
Understand the issues and what we have to deal with. Then construct a plan of action. When I have ask you what you would do to fix the climate change problem. You really don’t have any answer that is even remotely workable. For someone that is so opinionated and has done so much research I find that disheartening. Let me break this down in the simplest terms. Global Warming is part of Mother Nature. Climate Change is all man made. Global Warming is indisputable scientific facts that can be measured and established. Climate Change is nothing more than observation science with no indisputable datum points or baselines.Let me point out what a liar you continue to be. https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326 The term global warming applies to the overall increase of global average temperatures as a result of the positive radiative forcings of human activity, mostly from emitting hundreds of billions of tons of a gas over more than a century that absorbs heat in the spectrum emitted by the Earth. Climate change is a result of that increase in temperature as climate changes to reflect the new conditions. So no, it's not mother nature, as you dishonestly claim, both global warming and climate change are the result of human activity. As for the rest who cares what you post, it's all denier BS. You were referring to the bottom of the barrel above, well that bottom is the scum who lie about issues like this that are already killing, maiming and making homeless millions of people worldwide a catastrophe that will only continue to grow as we effectively do nothing to stop it. In the same way that millions of people died as the psychopaths in the tobacco lobby spent millions of dollars to fool people into thinking that smoking and chewing tobacco was perfectly safe and non-addictive - because it was the same people behind both campaigns. As this is basically a criminal conspiracy to kill millions for profit, it really does take a psychopath to engage in it. And as there's no reasonable doubt that you are in fact that kind of person I choose to never acknowledge your existence again.
Don’t sugar coat it DougC, tell us what you really think. :lol:
Don't sugar coat it DougC, tell us what you really think. :lol:Yah, it really steams me to have to still be dealing with people who couldn't care less that their actions are directly contributing to massive deaths already. About 400,000 people die each year due to climate change related events already. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18692/ Then there's the certainty that if we take this madness far enough it will result in the extinction of our species, thousands to millions of other species are going to be lost to our actions no matter what we do now. You'd have to be profoundly dead inside to not care about that in the slightest, which would be a prerequisite of engaging in intentional climate change denial. Which is clearly going on on a vast level when you look at how much money is being spent on it. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.At its basic level climate change denial and deniers are giving the rest of us one massive F.U. in exactly the same way the tobacco lobby has, I say let's give it right back to them.
At its basic level climate change denial and deniers are giving the rest of us one massive F.U. in exactly the same way the tobacco lobby has, I say let's give it right back to them.I'm with you. I lost all patience with climate change deniers several years ago, and Mike Yohe is one of the most annoying with his constant contradictions and flat-out falsehoods. Now he is redefining terms hoping to bolster his arguments.
Understand the issues and what we have to deal with. Then construct a plan of action. When I have ask you what you would do to fix the climate change problem. You really don’t have any answer that is even remotely workable. For someone that is so opinionated and has done so much research I find that disheartening.Understanding the situation has nothing to do with finding a solution. You approach this as though you were writing a novel - where events and facts must be moulded to the writer's desires. Understanding what our planet is doing - is something all together different from finding a solution.
Though, that's actually quite straightforward and has been known for a half century, at least. PUT LESS GHGs INTO OUR ATMOSPHERE ! ! !If you understood what was going on you'd appreciated why some of us have been concerned about this for decades, no solution, simply an awareness that this global warming world was a place we wanted to keep as far away as possible, and as long as possible. Instead humanity took the course of peddle to the metal, and will we, well the children of us baby boomers, will pay dearly for that grievous stupidity. The only stupidity here is the method of your thinking. Just sit back and review what you have just said. Al Gore was able to make a movement with great progress in just two years. The only big step forward you have had. And you just admitted that you have known of a problem for half a century and have not been able to do shit. Wake up! Railroads lost out on trucking because they did not realize what their goal was. The phone company lost out on the internet because they did not lead the public, they want to control and manage the public. Your movement is doing the same thing. So, stop your bitchin and whining, change your methods. The IPCC was formed in 1988 and has move forward in logical steps. It has not gotten involved with any of this denier bullshit or name calling that is the method of your movement. All you have done so far is to feed off the IPCC and make their job with the public much harder. Thank god that the public is much smarter that you give them credit for and is able to separate your movements’ conspiracy theories from the real science that is being used by the IPCC. Your solution, put less GHG’s into the atmosphere! That’s not the solution, that’s the problem.
Shit, you must be one hell of a lawyer.
Expert at making circles within circles, and turning the perpetrators into the poor pathetic victim.
Oh and expert at revising history to suit your own line of attack.
Have I got a book about you, er for you:
http://environment.as.nyu.edu/object/esnews.jamieson.reasoninadarktime Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle to Stop Climate Change Failed--and What It Means For Our Future By Dale Jamieson From the 1992 Rio Earth Summit to the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference there was a concerted international effort to stop climate change. Yet greenhouse gas emissions increased, atmospheric concentrations grew, and global warming became an observable fact of life. In this book, philosopher Dale Jamieson explains what climate change is, why we have failed to stop it, and why it still matters what we do. Centered in philosophy, the volume also treats the scientific, historical, economic, and political dimensions of climate change. Our failure to prevent or even to respond significantly to climate change, Jamieson argues, reflects the impoverishment of our systems of practical reason, the paralysis of our politics, and the limits of our cognitive and affective capacities. The climate change that is underway is remaking the world in such a way that familiar comforts, places, and ways of life will disappear in years or decades rather than centuries. Climate change also threatens our sense of meaning, since it is difficult to believe that our individual actions matter. The challenges that climate change presents go beyond the resources of common sense morality -- it can be hard to view such everyday acts as driving and flying as presenting moral problems. Yet there is much that we can do to slow climate change, to adapt to it and restore a sense of agency while living meaningful lives in a changing world. Read more...]
Your solution, put less GHG’s into the atmosphere! That’s not the solution, that’s the problem.
So, it doesn't change the central thesis that you keep trying to introduce here that human forced climate change isn't something to be very concerned about and addressed right away. Or that you're not part of an extensive and incredibly well funded campaign of disinformation on the subject that stretches back decades. Who cares what someone who's most likely being paid to lie on an issue that is already killing vast numbers of people based on a previous campaign that did the same thinks about anything related to reality. We'll come to you when we want fiction not facts.You are totally wrong in all directions in the above statement. Let me try and explain again for the hundredth time. If you want to accomplish any task or project. The fastest way to get this done is to do it right the first time. Not to do the task over and over again and keep spinning your wheels in the same spot. So far, you have bored the hell out of the public, burnt your bridges and used up half your gas. Out of the hundreds of books that have been written on your crusade, Al Gore’s book the An Inconvenient Truth is the only one that the public understands and was interested in. And that is a decade old. Your energy is spent on side track issues that go nowhere and accomplish nothing. Who gives a shit about Exxon spending money on deniers? I don’t. Exxon is no different than any other business, government agency or public institution. And the sooner you learn that, the more productive you will be. Do shut up, I don't take instruction from psychopaths. Hit a nerve, did we? The only good facts you have are coming from the IPCC’s work. You feed off the IPCC, take credit for their work, and then turn their work around to use in your conspiracy theories. You need to stop doing that. People are dying around the world while you play your blame games.
Your solution, put less GHG’s into the atmosphere! That’s not the solution, that’s the problem.
Really Darron. You’re just playing games...Trying to get you to clarify your comment is not playing games, at least not on my end.
Really Darron. You’re just playing games...Trying to get you to calcify your comment is not playing games, at least not on my end. OK, I was having trouble reading your intentions. If you was just wanting calcification, then I am sorry. I will be glad to clarify my statements. Some items are hard to clarify. Take Global Warming and Climate Change for example. What is going on here is that the IPCC is growing and evolving. Part of the evolving process that happens in all big agencies is “word terms" being departmentalized into legal department terms. One of the reasons we need lawyers to represent us in courts is understanding the legal terms of words. Take for example the term “Employee". The public has an understanding of what that very simple word means. But in legal terms each governmental department has its own definition. A person might not be an employee for the IRS but may be an employee for OSHA for example. And that can be hard for the public to understand. One of the biggest problems in the term Global Warming and Global Cooling was being able to tell the difference between what was caused by Mother Nature and what was caused by mankind. That’s why the term Climate Change was adapted. When you hear Climate Change, just think man-made. At this point of time the IPCC’s legal definition is also being used by the White House. And I know this can be very confusing to people who have use the term differently in the past as we have. I am backing the IPCC, so I am using the IPCC meaning. That does not mean the rest of the world is using the IPCC meaning. Thus – confusion.
I am backing the IPCC, so I am using the IPCC meaning. That does not mean the rest of the world is using the IPCC meaning. Thus – confusion.No, you are not backing the IPCC. You keep telling that lie, and you refuse to acknowledge the origins of the term climate change. Invest now or face 'irreversible' effects of climate change, U.n. panel warns] In all the time I have spent reading the IPCC reports I have never seen them make this distinction between climate change and global warming. Do you have a citation for that?
Shit, you must be one hell of a lawyer. Expert at making circles within circles, and turning the perpetrators into the poor pathetic victim. Oh and expert at revising history to suit your own line of attack. Have I got a book about you, er for you:I don’t have time right now to look at your data. But I get the gist. I think Climate Change has the ability to be one of mankind’s greatest achievements. That’s if we can get focused and moving in the right direction. As far as I can tell, the IPCC is leading us in the right direction.http://environment.as.nyu.edu/object/esnews.jamieson.reasoninadarktime Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle to Stop Climate Change Failed--and What It Means For Our Future By Dale Jamieson From the 1992 Rio Earth Summit to the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference there was a concerted international effort to stop climate change. Yet greenhouse gas emissions increased, atmospheric concentrations grew, and global warming became an observable fact of life. In this book, philosopher Dale Jamieson explains what climate change is, why we have failed to stop it, and why it still matters what we do. Centered in philosophy, the volume also treats the scientific, historical, economic, and political dimensions of climate change. Our failure to prevent or even to respond significantly to climate change, Jamieson argues, reflects the impoverishment of our systems of practical reason, the paralysis of our politics, and the limits of our cognitive and affective capacities. The climate change that is underway is remaking the world in such a way that familiar comforts, places, and ways of life will disappear in years or decades rather than centuries. Climate change also threatens our sense of meaning, since it is difficult to believe that our individual actions matter. The challenges that climate change presents go beyond the resources of common sense morality -- it can be hard to view such everyday acts as driving and flying as presenting moral problems. Yet there is much that we can do to slow climate change, to adapt to it and restore a sense of agency while living meaningful lives in a changing world. Read more...]
Really Darron. You’re just playing games...Trying to get you to calcify your comment is not playing games, at least not on my end. OK, I was having trouble reading your intentions. If you was just wanting calcification, then I am sorry. We can never have enough calcification. psik
Really Darron. You’re just playing games...Trying to get you to calcify your comment is not playing games, at least not on my end. OK, I was having trouble reading your intentions. If you was just wanting calcification, then I am sorry. We can never have enough calcification. psik I fixed the typo.
Shit, you must be one hell of a lawyer. Expert at making circles within circles, and turning the perpetrators into the poor pathetic victim. Oh and expert at revising history to suit your own line of attack. Have I got a book about you, er for you:Don't Blame Climate Change Deniers Even climate change philosophers deal with uncertainties that make our national conversation on the issue chaotic. Dale Jamieson points out that we can't be sure who to blame: "A lot of our thinking about policy tends to be oriented around a sort of good guy-bad guy polarization. Climate change is an issue that doesn’t fit very neatly into that stereotype. ... We’re all involved in contributing to the problem to some extent and we’re all involved in suffering from the problem to some extent." The noisy climate change deniers bear some of the responsibility, of course, but surely not all. The fossil fuel corporations are a big part of the problem, too. Yet, as Paul Krugman recently wrote, "it’s not mainly about the vested interests. ... The monetary stakes aren’t nearly as big as you might think." Then there are the huge greenhouse gas emissions from poorer countries, especially China and India. Can we really say they are part of "the enemy" on this issue, when we Americans emit so much more per capita? Millions of us in the U.S. drive our cars, and use more energy than we need, every day. We have met the enemy and they is us. The evildoers in this tale are such a vast, diverse, vaguely-defined mass of people they're virtually invisible. If we think of carbon dioxide as the enemy, it's also invisible: "tasteless, odorless -- it doesn’t present to our visual systems," as Jamieson says. David Ropeik, an expert on risk perception, agrees. The public doesn't worry because the threat "doesn’t feel immediate/imminent. It doesn’t feel…well…real. It’s more of an idea, a concept, an abstraction." And we can't even be sure how big a problem carbon dioxide is. Methane may be the major culprit here. historynewsnetwork.org/blog/153507http://environment.as.nyu.edu/object/esnews.jamieson.reasoninadarktime Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle to Stop Climate Change Failed--and What It Means For Our Future By Dale Jamieson From the 1992 Rio Earth Summit to the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference there was a concerted international effort to stop climate change. Yet greenhouse gas emissions increased, atmospheric concentrations grew, and global warming became an observable fact of life. In this book, philosopher Dale Jamieson explains what climate change is, why we have failed to stop it, and why it still matters what we do. Centered in philosophy, the volume also treats the scientific, historical, economic, and political dimensions of climate change. Our failure to prevent or even to respond significantly to climate change, Jamieson argues, reflects the impoverishment of our systems of practical reason, the paralysis of our politics, and the limits of our cognitive and affective capacities. The climate change that is underway is remaking the world in such a way that familiar comforts, places, and ways of life will disappear in years or decades rather than centuries. Climate change also threatens our sense of meaning, since it is difficult to believe that our individual actions matter. The challenges that climate change presents go beyond the resources of common sense morality -- it can be hard to view such everyday acts as driving and flying as presenting moral problems. Yet there is much that we can do to slow climate change, to adapt to it and restore a sense of agency while living meaningful lives in a changing world. Read more...]
Hey Mike, where is your citation for the IPCC making a distinction between “global warming” and “climate change”? Given your history of misquoting, taking things out of context, and just plain making up shit I would like to see a citation.