Dr StrangeHarpper or: How I Learned to Stopped Worrying (About Global Warming) and Love CO2

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

***

Quote

climate change is mysterious and powerful.

Nope. But your attitude toward facts is. And your arguments are getting just plain silly. But I suppose that's because you've been getting them from silly people.

Another irony meter destroied...

In addition to learning to spell, you need to look up the definition of irony.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

http://grist.org/briefly/major-tv-networks-spent-just-50-minutes-on-climate-change-combined-last-year/

"Major TV networks spent just 50 minutes on climate change — combined — last year. That’s a dramatic, 66-percent drop in coverage from 2015 across evening and Sunday news programs airing on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, according to a new study from Media Matters. ABC, for one, spent just six minutes on climate issues in 2016."

Looks like the American people are done with Chicken Little.

[Phil1111 1,149]

brenthutch

http://grist.org/briefly/major-tv-networks-spent-just-50-minutes-on-climate-change-combined-last-year/

"Major TV networks spent just 50 minutes on climate change — combined — last year. That’s a dramatic, 66-percent drop in coverage from 2015 across evening and Sunday news programs airing on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, according to a new study from Media Matters. ABC, for one, spent just six minutes on climate issues in 2016."

Looks like the American people are done with Chicken Little.

Brent, you know everyone here loves you and tries to help you. But news coverage by major TV networks. Is not a quantifiable determinate of scientific fact. The US is such a leader or research. A shining star of science so to speak. NOAA, NASA, etc.

We all know that sooner or later, you will see the light. Sure science can be wrong. But in the absence of contrary facts. Which is altogether different from Mrs. Conway's "Alternative Facts". Facts should direct intelligent conclusions.

[gowlerk 2,191]

brenthutch

http://grist.org/briefly/major-tv-networks-spent-just-50-minutes-on-climate-change-combined-last-year/

"Major TV networks spent just 50 minutes on climate change — combined — last year. That’s a dramatic, 66-percent drop in coverage from 2015 across evening and Sunday news programs airing on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, according to a new study from Media Matters. ABC, for one, spent just six minutes on climate issues in 2016."

Looks like the American people are done with Chicken Little.

So...do you not understand why they spent so little time? Maybe it's because there is nothing left to talk about. The matter is settled and the decisions have been made. What they do talk about often is not climate change, but the ridiculous positions of politicians on it. It's now become a sort of litmus test on whether to take someone seriously or not. Like ridiculing the Trump position (now abandoned) that it's a Chinese conspiracy.

The world is passing you by, and you quote stories about how many stories as you grasp at straws?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[kallend 2,027]

brenthutch

http://grist.org/briefly/major-tv-networks-spent-just-50-minutes-on-climate-change-combined-last-year/

"Major TV networks spent just 50 minutes on climate change — combined — last year. That’s a dramatic, 66-percent drop in coverage from 2015 across evening and Sunday news programs airing on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, according to a new study from Media Matters. ABC, for one, spent just six minutes on climate issues in 2016."

Looks like the American people are done with Chicken Little.

So? Commenting on the orange faced buffoon's incompetent bumbling, lies, and broken promises, along with debunking the GOP's fake news machine, takes up a lot of network time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Phil1111 1,149]

"The sea ice cover in the Arctic and Antarctic hit new record lows for this time of year, marking the smallest polar ice caps in the 38-year satellite record, US government scientists said Wednesday...

Data from the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, also showed that on March 3, “sea ice around Antarctica hit its lowest extent ever recorded by satellites at the end of summer in the Southern Hemisphere.”

The disappearing sea ice comes as the planet has marked three years in a row of record-breaking heat, raising new concerns about the accelerating pace of global warming and the need to curb burning of fossil fuels which spew heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere....

The Arctic sea ice maximum has dropped by an average of 2.8 per cent per decade since 1979, NASA said.

“We started from a low September minimum extent,” said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center....

“Last year was stunningly different, with prominent sea ice decreases in the Antarctic.”
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as:
Sea ice cover hits new record low at both poles
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/2081523/ice-caps-shrink-new-record-lows-both-ends-planet

No the Chinese are not smarter than Americans. They and other countries are just more concerned. The US less so and of course there are more anti-science "outliers" or people that refuse to recognize science. In the US. For educated western counties the US is overall 20% less concerned about the environment and warming. Even though US organizations like NOAA lead research in these areas.
Posted in this thread before:
[/url]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/

Want to Gut Emission Rules? Prepare for War With California

In its ongoing jihad against federal regulations, the Trump administration has indicated some interest in targeting the ones that attempt to fight climate change. First in its sights: a funky law that gives the state of California the right to make its own rules on automotive emissions. But because of the way laws and business work, the California exemption is one of the most powerful environmental tools in the world.

So California’s not going down without a fight.

A quick history lesson: When legislators wrote the 1963 Clean Air Act, they acknowledged that California already had pollution-fighting rules, and that its environmental situation was especially dire. So they gave the state the right to write its own, stricter standards.

“It’s hard to overstate how important the ability for California to set its standards has been to public health and clean air over the past 40 years,” says Don Anair, deputy director for the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Time and again, California’s been willing and able to move forward.”
[url]https://www.wired.com/2017/03/want-gut-emission-rules-prepare-war-california/

California lawmakers don't think this fight is emission impossible

The Trump administration could move at any time to revoke California's right to impose stricter auto emissions standards than the federal government does, and the state's senators are already mounting a fight.

Congressional sources are hearing conflicting information on whether and when the Environmental Protection Agency will revoke California's waiver.

The EPA is refusing to comment, with a spokeswoman saying, "We don't have any information to offer at this time."

California has signaled its willingness to fight Trump in court and has hired former Attorney General Eric Holder to assist with challenges to the president's policies.

No administration has tried to revoke an existing waiver issued under a Clean Air Act for California to set its own auto emissions standards. So there is no legal precedent for how a judge could rule, said Richard Frank, an environmental law processor at the University of California, Davis.
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-california-lawmakers-dont-emission-impossible.html

[brenthutch 444]

Phil1111

***http://grist.org/briefly/major-tv-networks-spent-just-50-minutes-on-climate-change-combined-last-year/

"Major TV networks spent just 50 minutes on climate change — combined — last year. That’s a dramatic, 66-percent drop in coverage from 2015 across evening and Sunday news programs airing on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, according to a new study from Media Matters. ABC, for one, spent just six minutes on climate issues in 2016."

Looks like the American people are done with Chicken Little.

Brent, you know everyone here loves you and tries to help you. But news coverage by major TV networks. Is not a quantifiable determinate of scientific fact.

Says the guy who quotes polls

After two decades of the climate boys crying wolf the populace has finally tuned out and elected a "Denier" as POTUS.

[billvon 2,991]

>Looks like the American people are done with Chicken Little.

Or they finally understand climate change and don't need another hundred stories about it.
========================
Gallup
March 14, 2017

Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in US

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Record percentages of Americans are concerned about global warming, believe it is occurring, consider it a serious threat and say it is caused by human activity. All of these perceptions are up significantly from 2015.
=========================

Sorry Brent. Looks like education is winning over ignorance.

[brenthutch 444]

I'm not sure if you knew this or not but....if 45% think global warming is very important, math says that 55% think it's not. And 55>45.

[gowlerk 2,191]

brenthutch

I'm not sure if you knew this or not but....if 45% think global warming is very important, math says that 65% think it's not. And 65>45.

I'm not sure if you know this or not Brent, but 45 plus 65 equals 110. That's a large percentage. Those questions use a sliding scale of "very important, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant, very unimportant, or no opinion. Anytime you get a result with 45% at the extreme it's a strong indication that the sample finds a lot of agreement.

Face it. You are a dinosaur on this subject. Well outside of the mainstream. But more importantly, well outside of the facts.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[kallend 2,027]

brenthutch

I'm not sure if you knew this or not but....if 45% think global warming is very important, math says that 55% think it's not. And 55>45.

Umm NO. Lame attempt to mislead.

45% said they worry "a great deal" about it. 62% said it's already begun, and 68% said humans are the cause.

www.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx

Not that science cares about opinion polls.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sonnyblu 0]

kallend

Not that science cares about opinion polls.

Exactly, science is about understanding how things work. Technology is about making everything better. I think we could all agree that using our limited supply of oil more tangibly is better than just burning it off for fuel - especially when we have more efficient methods to produce energy.

Unfortunately tho, some of the most prominent scientists rather preoccupy themselves with the vanity of politics and morality.

You'd think they would've learned their lesson by now. . .

[billvon 2,991]

Quote

Exactly, science is about understanding how things work. Technology is about making everything better. I think we could all agree that using our limited supply of oil more tangibly is better than just burning it off for fuel - especially when we have more efficient methods to produce energy.

Unfortunately tho, some of the most prominent scientists rather preoccupy themselves with the vanity of politics and morality.

Definitely agreed there. Fortunately, the vast majority of scientists stick to the facts when it comes to climate change.

[sonnyblu 0]

billvon

Quote

Exactly, science is about understanding how things work. Technology is about making everything better. I think we could all agree that using our limited supply of oil more tangibly is better than just burning it off for fuel - especially when we have more efficient methods to produce energy.

Unfortunately tho, some of the most prominent scientists rather preoccupy themselves with the vanity of politics and morality.

Definitely agreed there. Fortunately, the vast majority of scientists stick to the facts when it comes to climate change.

All scientist need to do is say, "hey, we have some pretty new kick ass technology - look at this this cool shit!" (no pun intended)

It would solve the problem. No reason to get in fights over politics/morality.

[kallend 2,027]

sonnyblu

***

Quote

Exactly, science is about understanding how things work. Technology is about making everything better. I think we could all agree that using our limited supply of oil more tangibly is better than just burning it off for fuel - especially when we have more efficient methods to produce energy.

Unfortunately tho, some of the most prominent scientists rather preoccupy themselves with the vanity of politics and morality.

Definitely agreed there. Fortunately, the vast majority of scientists stick to the facts when it comes to climate change.

All scientist need to do is say, "hey, we have some pretty new kick ass technology - look at this this cool shit!" (no pun intended)

.

That would be engineers, not scientists.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

sonnyblu

***

Quote

Exactly, science is about understanding how things work. Technology is about making everything better. I think we could all agree that using our limited supply of oil more tangibly is better than just burning it off for fuel - especially when we have more efficient methods to produce energy.

Unfortunately tho, some of the most prominent scientists rather preoccupy themselves with the vanity of politics and morality.

Definitely agreed there. Fortunately, the vast majority of scientists stick to the facts when it comes to climate change.

All scientist need to do is say, "hey, we have some pretty new kick ass technology - look at this this cool shit!" (no pun intended)


Like this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Aventador

[airdvr 210]

You operate under the mistaken belief that science is never wrong.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[gowlerk 2,191]

airdvr

You operate under the mistaken belief that science is never wrong.

But it's wrong far less often than American right wing politicians. The American right has being wrong and convincing themselves that they are correct down to a science. Maybe they really are scientists!

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[AlanS 1]

gowlerk

***You operate under the mistaken belief that science is never wrong.

But it's wrong far less often than American right wing politicians. The American right has being wrong and convincing themselves that they are correct down to a science. Maybe they really are scientists!

I disagree a little with this. Science is a method for getting to the truth. It doesn't belong any political ideology, left or right.

Carl Sagan says it best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZOT_xAIWbA

"Science is a self correcting process. To be accepted new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. ... The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science."


How ever regarding climate change you are correct the attack in science is coming from the right. But on other subjects like GMOs that assault comes from the left.

Frontline "Climate of Doubt"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0rGnTgG0nE

This is how sciences gets polluted.

[kallend 2,027]

airdvr

You operate under the mistaken belief that science is never wrong.

You clearly don't understand what science IS.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

It's whole notion that "the science is settled" is inherently anti-science. It is a trope designed to shut down debate, avoid scrutiny and is illustrative of the weakness of CAGW theory.

[jclalor 12]

brenthutch

It's whole notion that "the science is settled" is inherently anti-science. It is a trope designed to shut down debate, avoid scrutiny and is illustrative of the weakness of CAGW theory.

Interesting that "the science is settled" for some when it comes to canopy deployment, but not so much settled when it comes to climate change.

[airdvr 210]

jclalor

***It's whole notion that "the science is settled" is inherently anti-science. It is a trope designed to shut down debate, avoid scrutiny and is illustrative of the weakness of CAGW theory.

Interesting that "the science is settled" for some when it comes to canopy deployment, but not so much settled when it comes to climate change.

You're confusing science with engineering and physics.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

airdvr

You're confusing science with engineering and physics.

Really? Confusing "science" with "physics".

Engineering is applying science, but physics is science.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[AlanS 1]

airdvr

******It's whole notion that "the science is settled" is inherently anti-science. It is a trope designed to shut down debate, avoid scrutiny and is illustrative of the weakness of CAGW theory.

Interesting that "the science is settled" for some when it comes to canopy deployment, but not so much settled when it comes to climate change.

You're confusing science with engineering and physics.


This science isn't that hard. Increased CO2 and greenhouse gases WILL increase the average temperature of the planet. This was settled in the scientific literate back in the 1880s. The debate is just over how quickly, and that depends on if some feedback loops are positive or negative contributors to the rate of increase.

Having a position that is "yes the planet will get warmer... so what" is a viable debating position. But saying the "the science isn't settled" isn't. That is just just denying the truth, to avoid the real debate that needs to happen.