What should the rest of the world do about America's Climate change denial?

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: LDragonFire

The world should mind its own business, and frankly so should the USA. If the rest of the world wants to see results, they should set an example for the US to follow...but that wont happen, because climate change is not man made, and so far all efforts to stop this boogeyman have turned out to be tax collection schemes.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: LDragonFire

What part is the one to be debated, LDragon the fact that the earth is going into a global cycle of climate change or the debate that we humans are the ones that is causing it and should be paying for it, so somebody else (no earth) will profit from it.

SIGNATURE : Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

originally posted by: projectbane
a reply to: LDragonFire


Climate change haha

Please grow up and see that climate change is natural. Its the world changing and cleansing if you will. Not man made. But the dawn of the next extinction.

Then let the rest of the world tax their people into poverty for something that is non-changeable even if it exists (not likely through anthropgenic means-either caused by or reversible by)...

Jaden

I simply can not fathom these beliefs. There is no debate nor evidence to the contrary that the climate change we are observing and experiencing is man made.

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." -American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006)

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." -American Chemical Society (2004)

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." -American Geophysical Union (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." -American Medical Association (2013)

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." -American Meteorological Society (2012)

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Climate change is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." -American Physical Society (2007)

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." -U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2005)

This page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.

A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree on the interpretation of the evidence pertaining to a specific scientific question. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus.

The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus that global warming is a real phenomenon for which humans are responsible:

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
And many many many more.

The following national or international scientific bodies that reject anthropogenic global warming:

The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations. Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world's environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community. No one should underestimate the imagination that will be required, nor the scientific effort, nor the unprecedented co-operation we shall have to show. We shall need statesmanship of a rare order.

—Margaret Thatcher, 1990

It is changeable, and there are a lot of well-researched solutions. But it sounds like people like you have no interest in educating yourselves on these issues. It's willful ignorance.

couldn't have said it better myself.

on topic, there is little the world can do about america's prevalent denialism. it is up to america to educate itself, and listen to those who are actually in a position to make a judgement on the scientific evidence. not possesing relevant scientific knowledge disqualifies anyone from having the right to make claims disputing the scientific consensus.

a lot of people do not even understand the basis of scientific method, let alone the definition of its terms. "it's only a theory" is an argument i hear a lot. understanding the difference between a scientific theory, and a regular theory would dispell the majority of science denialists' agruments.

scientific theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

regular theory: something someone made up to explain what they don't understand.

Thank you. Agreed.

I challenge anybody on here who believes that the debate is not pretty much closed about anthropogenic climate change to provide a list of peer-reviewed, replicated, credible studies that say climate change is not being caused or accelerated by humans. The evidence is overwhelming, and something like 97% of relevant scientists agree.

Trust me, I've given this challenge a number of times. And usually I can hear crickets for daysssssss.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
First...I don't believe in man-made, end of the world, OMFG climate change as others do. Yes, the climate changes and yes it is changing in cycles. But the "Global Warming" crowd bought off some scientists and told lies and now says..."but this time with climate change it is real". Forget it! You guys and Al Gore can go hang out together.

But...while the USA is being environmentally concerned and active in many areas, why do we need to lead or follow on this? The rest of the world on one day wants us out of their business...the next day its "come and fight our war" or "give us money". The rest of the world can go to hell (for the most part). I'm kinda sick of being the parent when everyone is there to pick up their allowance and protection, but never there for anything else. Like a bad kid.

Except that most of the scientists that are bought and paid for and lying are bought by big oil, coal and power companies and that most of the scientists...even from universities and organizations that are highly respected are telling us that man made global warming is real. The true measure of a person's understanding of climate change is if they invoke the name of al gore...as if he invented this. No...we're talking about real scientists doing real scientific research.

So you don't think that scientists who depend on government and environmental group money aren't dependent on producing results that fit a certain agenda anymore than private sector researchers might be, especially considering that private sector science is always policed tightly by government regulators, and those regulators are in no way friendly to industry.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The 97% statistic is number manipulation.

a reply to: LDragonFire

This is a perfect example of how,"A person is smart, but people are stupid." Also known as mob mentality, the largest group with the loudest voice will be heard and followed more than those who are smaller and quieter, even if they aren't making the very best of decisions.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
First...I don't believe in man-made, end of the world, OMFG climate change as others do. Yes, the climate changes and yes it is changing in cycles. But the "Global Warming" crowd bought off some scientists and told lies and now says..."but this time with climate change it is real". Forget it! You guys and Al Gore can go hang out together.

But...while the USA is being environmentally concerned and active in many areas, why do we need to lead or follow on this? The rest of the world on one day wants us out of their business...the next day its "come and fight our war" or "give us money". The rest of the world can go to hell (for the most part). I'm kinda sick of being the parent when everyone is there to pick up their allowance and protection, but never there for anything else. Like a bad kid.

Except that most of the scientists that are bought and paid for and lying are bought by big oil, coal and power companies and that most of the scientists...even from universities and organizations that are highly respected are telling us that man made global warming is real. The true measure of a person's understanding of climate change is if they invoke the name of al gore...as if he invented this. No...we're talking about real scientists doing real scientific research.

So you don't think that scientists who depend on government and environmental group money aren't dependent on producing results that fit a certain agenda anymore than private sector researchers might be, especially considering that private sector science is always policed tightly by government regulators, and those regulators are in no way friendly to industry.

The government and academic institutions have FAR less money available to fund studies, media outreach, and propaganda campaigns, not to mention buying politicians....

Sorry, the energy industry and other relevant power brokers have had a far greater vested interest in being anti-environment and denying climate change this whole time. It's crystal clear for an educated person where the vested interests and special interests reside.

Not only that, but the very government you speak of is totally bought out by said corporations, not the other way around.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
First...I don't believe in man-made, end of the world, OMFG climate change as others do. Yes, the climate changes and yes it is changing in cycles. But the "Global Warming" crowd bought off some scientists and told lies and now says..."but this time with climate change it is real". Forget it! You guys and Al Gore can go hang out together.

But...while the USA is being environmentally concerned and active in many areas, why do we need to lead or follow on this? The rest of the world on one day wants us out of their business...the next day its "come and fight our war" or "give us money". The rest of the world can go to hell (for the most part). I'm kinda sick of being the parent when everyone is there to pick up their allowance and protection, but never there for anything else. Like a bad kid.

Except that most of the scientists that are bought and paid for and lying are bought by big oil, coal and power companies and that most of the scientists...even from universities and organizations that are highly respected are telling us that man made global warming is real. The true measure of a person's understanding of climate change is if they invoke the name of al gore...as if he invented this. No...we're talking about real scientists doing real scientific research.

So you don't think that scientists who depend on government and environmental group money aren't dependent on producing results that fit a certain agenda anymore than private sector researchers might be, especially considering that private sector science is always policed tightly by government regulators, and those regulators are in no way friendly to industry.

The government and academic institutions have FAR less money available to fund studies, media outreach, and propaganda campaigns, not to mention buying politicians....

Sorry, the energy industry and other relevant power brokers have had a far greater vested interest in being anti-environment and denying climate change this whole time. It's crystal clear for an educated person where the vested interests and special interests reside.

Not only that, but the very government you speak of is totally bought out by said corporations, not the other way around.

LOL, the energy sectors money is a spec compared to the Wall Street and Banker money buying politicians to implement the Carbon Credit Scam.

That is the goal. There is no goal to reduce emissions, just trade credits. A estimated 3 Trillion dollar a year industry if they get their wish.... Think about that.


What I find frustrating are idiots who fight for the "cause" but actually support the idea of the Carbon Credit Scam. No results except emptying your wallet to feed the Wall Street money machine.

To hell with them and their Scam. Likewise, to hell with anyone who is dumb enough to support this scam in the name of environmentalism. (otherwise called useful idiots by the profit mongers).

First you would have to address the cause of the glaciers melting, the polar ice caps of mars (and other solar system neighbors) melting in parallel to ours, the tropical specimens found in the tundra and then explain the superheated ribbons (upwards of 6000 celcius ambient temp) our solar system is entering but NASA quit talking about. I jam these together because a common sense theory becomes clear very quickly.

Then explain how many SUVs idling in parking lots caused the glaciers to melt 10,000 years ago.
How many SUVs are currently wasting fossil fuels on MARS?
How consumerism has pushed our solar system into a hot zone.
Why tropical plants lost their ability to grow in cold areas like they must have once upon a time.

Once you've completed that, talk to CHINA first, Russia second, India thrid and USA forth.
Waving away the smoke will not stop the fire, just fan the flames. But forcefully perpetuating tax grabbing science fiction is just validating the claims of the report from iron mountain.

Finally, let's pray together that our sun goes supernova. It's the only all encompassing, real way out of this asylum for the insane.

originally posted by: Atlantican
First you would have to address the cause of the glaciers melting,

we already have.

According to Taylor RG, Mileham L, Tindimugaya C, Majugu A, Muwanga A and Nakileza B (2006) in “Recent glacial recession in the Rwenzori Mountains of East Africa due to rising air temperature”, the increased atmospheric temperature from global warming is the main factor for the melting of glaciers.

Global warming is the rise in average global temperature, and this increase in temperature has been taking place over the past century. In turn, global warming is tightly linked to the rapid industrial growth over the past century, where the use of fossil fuels in industries, offices and homes became rampant and the release of green house gasses like carbon dioxide became excessive and beyond what our remaining forests can absorb. The increased level of green house gases in turn leads to more heat trapped in the earth’s atmosphere, resulting in overall warmer temperatures. This increase in global temperature is the biggest cause of melting glaciers.

the polar ice caps of mars (and other solar system neighbors) melting in parallel to ours,

we already have.

Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and wane. "It's late spring at the south pole of Mars," says planetary scientist Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it."

As seasons come and go, carbon dioxide shifts back and forth--lying on the ground during cold months, floating through the air during warmer months. The world-wide air pressure rises and falls by 25%.

For comparison, the air pressure inside a hurricane on Earth is often only a few percent lower than ambient. You can experience a full 25% difference in pressure by traveling from sea level to the top of a 9000 ft (3000 m) mountain. Just try running a 100 yard dash up there.

The south polar cap is vaporizing now, which means CO2 is rushing back into the atmosphere. "Remember, though," adds Smith, "there are two polar caps on Mars--north and south. While the south polar cap is vaporizing the north polar cap is growing. It's a balancing act. Overall air pressure will be greatest when there's the least amount of CO2 on the ground." The next such peak is due in early October--that is, early southern summer on Mars.

the tropical specimens found in the tundra

only plants with shallow root systems can grow in tundra.. tropical specimens are sometimes found under glaciers. this has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change.

and then explain the superheated ribbons (upwards of 6000 celcius ambient temp) our solar system is entering but NASA quit talking about.

they quit talking once they'd finished explaining it.. this has nothing to do with athropogenic climate change.

When NASA’s IBEX satellite began sending back data about energetic interstellar atoms, a notable structure of was noticed at the edge of our solar system, which astronomers dubbed “the Ribbon.” Now, some scientists think that this “ribbon” is evidence that the sun is entering into a superheated cloud of interstellar dust. If correct, they predict our solar system will slide into this interstellar cloud over the course of the next century.

But before you panic, the scientists go on to report that what gets called a “cloud” in space is not exactly the same as here on Earth. An interstellar dust cloud of this type is in fact still less dense than the best vacuum possible on Earth. So the danger isn’t that great. What’s the worst that could happen?

“Once in, the heliosphere will reform and may shrink a little, the level of cosmic radiation entering the magnetosphere may rise a bit, but nothing more. “Perhaps future generations will have to learn how to better harden their space hardware against stronger radiation,” suggests Prof. Stan Grzedzielski from the Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences

I jam these together because a common sense theory becomes clear very quickly.

You jammed these things together because you are grasping at straws to form a theory to support your belief.

Then explain how many SUVs idling in parking lots caused the glaciers to melt 10,000 years ago.
How many SUVs are currently wasting fossil fuels on MARS?
How consumerism has pushed our solar system into a hot zone.

now you're being silly. the holocene glacier retreat was caused by higher levels of solar radiation in the tropics. the other points we've covered above..

The team then determined the causes of the ice melt on Telata. For different past positions of the glacier, they linked the volume of ice to the temperatures and precipitations which prevailed at the time. Their calculations showed the retreat to be related above all to atmospheric warming of about 3°C over the entire Holocene period. This appears to be due to a rise in sea surface temperature of the tropical Pacific Ocean over the course of these ten millennia owing in turn to a gradual increase in the quantity of solar radiation received at Earth's surface -commonly called "insolation."

Why tropical plants lost their ability to grow in cold areas like they must have once upon a time.

tropical plants grow in the tropics.. if they grew in frozen tundra they'd be a different species.

Once you've completed that, talk to CHINA first, Russia second, India thrid and USA forth.

now i've completed that, i'd rather start talking with the denialists, regardless of their nationality.

Waving away the smoke will not stop the fire, just fan the flames. But forcefully perpetuating tax grabbing science fiction is just validating the claims of the report from iron mountain.

while i agree tax grabbing law reform isn't the best way to change habits, it's a start. economic sanctions are regularly imposed on unruly nations for causing social and political unrest, why not on companies that willfully cause environmental damage? science fiction this most certainly is not.

iron mountain was satire, not a serious publication. leonard lewin was a funny guy.

Finally, let's pray together that our sun goes supernova. It's the only all encompassing, real way out of this asylum for the insane.

i don't even..

Whatever. Have it your way, factual inaccuracies, ommisions, copy/paste rapid-fire talking points and all. And great job totally missing my point on the tundra. Nice join date by the way. Hi guys!

"Denier" - It's ad hominem and the only face card the manbearpig has. Don't use it or you'll be called a "changer" or a "cool warmer" when the dealing is done.

Calling people "deniers" and "denialists" is one of the lowest forms of trying to torpedo debate and serves only to reveal a well fed climatecult even further. "Oh they got to you too huh?" It's been going on for decades now, first cooling then warming, now change we can all believe in. Since nature seems to have another plan they address the natural changes that have always been happening as a "thing" called "climate change". I think the real deniers are the ones denying the natural ebb and flow of the aspirating earth (yup I just said that), the heliospheric conditions and now the superheated space ribbons (6000 celcius) that are estimated to be 30 light years long, penetrating the heliosphere and are perpendicular to the natural magnetic order of our solar system like a knife through butter. Whoops... Now there's a lump under the rug! Oh and the Sun has been erratic to say the least. I think the Sun might actually have something to do with heating.

However I agree that the solution to most of the problems with the environment is our reduced use of oil based products, including the computers (housing, plastic parts) we are using right now. It's also the main issue with our health. But no matter what happens in regulatory law, I will benefit financially as long as people need motion and electricity. Exponentially more so with a cap and trade system *fact. And sure, you probably think we're overpopulated too. So we'll start with the people who are gullible and easily purchased for paper money. Let's tell them it's the rapture, we'll gas em into heaven.

Yes, it is happening but not from mankind's activities. Man is just not that great, I'm sorry. But if it was true then it is a function of nature that mankind is driven to fulfill. After all, evolution right? The same people pushing this guilt trip on us are the same ones that perpetuate the industries we are forced to support.

M'Kay... I will leave you to it. I don't check back to these things often so feel free to tell the guy in the cubicle next to you to go ahead and fire at me. But if he wakes me up at 4:30am claiming to be from Microsoft Windows Security, calling himself Albert in a heavy Indian accent, I'm going hunting.

Stay Frosty, real frosty.

a reply to: Atlantican

Care to post a link to support any of your claims?

Care to explain what point you were making about the tundra?

Care to explain why all of the current scientific understanding is wrong?

Care to source the information regarding the "superheated space ribbons" which are "perpendicular to the natural magnetic order"?

Have you got any kind of peer reviewed or scientist authored information to show that the increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that is accelerating climate change is not from human activity?

Care to prove in any way at all that decades of research and scientific observation has a "shelf life of 5 - 10 years and zero substance"?

What are these "seed studies" which were investigated and declared false? Investigated by whom?

It's not a "function of nature", it's simple human error we can control and mediate, evolution right?

All I see is woo. You've provided nothing but conjecture, assumption and opinion, (not to mention some pretty far out and unrelated space woo), to disprove science, you have to do better than that.. Unless you can provide something in the way of an "equally valid, credentialed counter", which you claim exists for every piece of evidence toward it, I cannot take you seriously..

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Maybe the world could lead by example. Maybe China could reduce their pollution levels

China have reduced the co2 levels massive amounts over the same year. They now produce as much co2 as the uk. They now lead the world by example..

What should the rest of the world do about America's Climate change denial?

The rest of the world should go plug their tiny under-developed genitalia into the nearest wall mounted electrical power outlet.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

If that were the case, then the energy sector would have MANY more scientists on it's side.

And if these corporations had any big say so in the Government like you say, they would then be funding scientists for global warming, while at the same time funding scientists against global warming.

LOL

originally posted by: poncho1982
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

If that were the case, then the energy sector would have MANY more scientists on it's side.

And if these corporations had any big say so in the Government like you say, they would then be funding scientists for global warming, while at the same time funding scientists against global warming.

LOL

Come now, if you are claiming the corporations are not now mostly in control of the government and media........ This is common knowledge, especially on ATS.

Second, the energy sector has bought out politicians. You know, like the Republicans and George Bush Jr. They always deny climate change and environmental needs. George Bush's family is entrenched in the energy industry.

Third, it is far harder to fake scientific data and produce peer-reviewed, replicable, reliable, externally and internally valid scientific studies purely based on industry desires than to pay off the media and politicians. Hence why yes, there ARE far fewer studies against anthropogenic climate change. There ARE less scientists on that side precisely because the data is so clear.

Fourth, scientists are funded by ALL kinds of sources worldwide, not your simple binary of energy industry versus government.

The thing is, worldwide the scientific community is in general agreement that humans are causing climate change this cycle. So, are you attempting to imply that ALL scientists involved in this worldwide are funded by the US government?

Let me mirror back "LOL" to you.