- Feb 18, 2021
- 2,389
- 1,169
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You do have a love of projection.It was actually a summary of tactics used by many on the left to shut down debate and avoid actual discussion on issues.
They feel like they are more frequent because hurricanes are getting more dangerous because of climate change.The Myth That Hurricanes Are Getting Worse (Because of Climate Change)
Despite what you may have heard, climate change is not actually causing more hurricanes—activity has actually been decreasing slightly since 1900, data from the American Meteorological Society show. That is only half of the story, however.fee.org
“Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate"” Glad to know he is “broadly accurate”. In another post you pointed out he was not a climatologist. Is “broadly accurate “ something like almost correct but not quite?If you want to appear knowledgeable your need to check your facts before you post.
IS Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?
What The Science Says:Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.Climate Myth: Al Gore got it wrong“Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was […] criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film.
Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration" to support the former US vice-president's views on climate change.” (The Guardian)
Al Gore, certainly the most vilified proponent of climate change anywhere in the world, earned most of this enmity through the success of a film he presented called An Inconvenient Truth (AIT). The film was a staid presentation of climate science to date, a round-up of research, science and projections, with many cinematic sequences employed to harness the power of the medium.The majority of the film, covering issues like Himalayan Glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica losing ice, the severity of hurricanes and other weather phenomena, was accurate and represented the science as it stood. Since the release of the film, considerably more evidence has been found in support of the science and projections in the film.One claim was in error, as was one attribution of a graph. The error was in the claim that climate change had caused the shrinking of Mount Kilimanjaro, although the evidence that the shrinkage was most likely caused by deforestation did not appear until after the film was made. The error of attribution was in reference to a graph of temperature and attributes it mistakenly to a Dr. Thompson, when it was actually a combination of Mann’s hockey stick and CRU surface temperature data.
The Legal CaseThe film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue.The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues.Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. About the film in general, he said this:17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down.Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.
Could that be because more and more people are moving to coastal areas? More buildings to sustain damage and more people concentrated in an area just might be a factor here.Flooding and wind damage from hurricanes is getting more common in the United States,
If you are down with giving up rice , meat, gas powered cars, electricity and living in a a cave while eating bugs I am all for your right to do so but you can leave me out of that . Man WILL NOT destroy this planet that is a fact. And globalist agendas will not save us.If you want to appear knowledgeable your need to check your facts before you post.
And some have a love of deception.You do have a love of projection.
You are again grasping at straws. Has anyone taken away your right to those things? If you have read other of my comments regarding a finite world and the Limits To Growth you should know that I am not optimistic that the reality of climate change will influence our toxic behavior. I believe that Limits to Growth is actually a bit optimistic.If you are down with giving up rice , meat, gas powered cars, electricity and living in a a cave while eating bugs I am all for your right to do so but you can leave me out of that . Man WILL NOT destroy this planet that is a fact.
If are referring to an agenda for sustainability I am a fatalist. I don't believe that human hubris will allow an agenda of sustainability.And globalist agendas will not save us.
You are making accusations that I am deceptive with zero evidence.And some have a love of deception.
I think that costly hurricanes for most costly hurricanes even if they are not increasing in strength but unfortunately they are increasing in strength.Could that be because more and more people are moving to coastal areas? More buildings to sustain damage and more people concentrated in an area just might be a factor here.
If you are down with giving up rice , meat, gas powered cars, electricity and living in a a cave while eating bugs I am all for your right to do so but you can leave me out of that .
Man WILL NOT destroy this planet that is a fact.
(((eye roll)))And globalist agendas will not save us.
There are many who are working feverishly to do just that!Has anyone taken away your right to those things?
I was carful to be more general and not directly point a finger at you . You were not so kind in referring my knowledge.You are making accusations that I am deceptive with zero evidence.
They get me where I want to go more efficiently than rechargeable vehicles.If you want to just bump around town they may be ok but if one likes to travel they are not ready for prime time. Lets consider the cost if you have to replace the battery, most people cannot afford the costs associated with electric cars. What consideration have you given the production of power to recharge all of those cars, the cost of producing the batteries, the resources needed to produce the batteries, the effect on the environment to dispose of the old batteries.What's so great about "gas powered cars"? The engines are noisy; I have to go to a fume-filled filling station to fuel it up; and I'm sick of sucking fumes from the exhaust of other cars while walking down the street or sitting in traffic. If you've got a better alternative, why not give them up.
Man has the ability to destroy the planet with nukes but that will not happen either!No, the Sun will do that. What Man can do is destroy the ecosystem we need to thrive.
We can't see the eye roll when they are closed.(((eye roll)))
I'll repeat my questions since you didn't answer them. Who claimed that [we would be under water]? Please be specific. What scientific studies are you referring to?Al Gore has history of climate predictions, statements proven false
Former Vice President Al Gore, who warned this week that climate change was leading to "atomic bombs exploding every day," has made extreme predictions in the past.www.foxnews.com
But there are facts that cannot be denied unless one is totally oblivious to current events.
Since you want to do the "counting" thing. We should note that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that the data shows human induced climate change. The majority of the "highly educated scientists" skeptics are not even climatologists and the number of qualified climatologists who disagree are a few percent. (There are a few percent in any group that are "contrarians", so I don't give there esixtence much credence.)1. There are highly educated scientists on both sides of this issue.
Not necessarily, the non-carbon based electricity production methods are now cheaper to install and operate. Electric cars take less actual energy to operate. Etc. There will be a cost to transition, but cars and power plants wear out anyway and need replacement.2. Most solutions put forward take more wealth from the populace in the form of taxes or higher costs.
"Fear scenarios" tend to be the outliers of predictions used for political reasons and are thus not as likely to occur. (This is called a selection effect.)3. Many fear senerios stated in the past were not accurate.
Computer models are not guesses. Climate simulations are not tied to the accuracy of weather forecasts. There are significant difference between them.4. Computer models for future destruction are guesses at best, weathermen can't even accurately predict a few days out many times much less years down the road.
The warming we are experiencing now WOULD NOT BE HAPPENING NOW with out our intervention. The natural changes also tend to be more gradual and the artificial one is being rather abrupt.5. The earth has warmed and cooled in history without the aid of gas powered cars, cow farts or any other aid from humanity.
Then you should sell all your stuff and go live in a cave or whatever it was that Jesus said, and await the apocalpyse and leave the concerns of this world to the rest of us.I know how this ends, scripture tells me that. I am well aware that everyone does not hold that view . Forgive me if I am skeptical about any movement to take my money, my car, my beef, my rice, my electricity and freedom of movement. No all of those things have not yet been taken but they are in the present conversation.
Yes, fossil fuel companies that don't want to change their lucrative profit models.IMO there is an alternate, nefarious agenda here, sorry I just do not buy into the hype.
I'll repeat my questions since you didn't answer them. Who claimed that [we would be under water]? Please be specific. What scientific studies are you referring to?
A new study from Climate Central, a nonprofit research group, shows that roughly 50 major coastal cities will need to implement “unprecedented” adaptation measures to prevent rising seas from swallowing their most populated areas.
The analysis, in collaboration with researchers at Princeton University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, resulted in striking visual contrasts between the world as we know it today and our underwater future, if the planet warms to 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Oh yeah the vicious left wing has it personally in for you. No one will take your right away to be as energy hungry as you want be until there is not enough to go around for everyone. If you to know what will curtail your energy consumption I recommend "Limits to Growth."There are many who are working feverishly to do just that!
I was clearly referring to your inability to provide any evidence without which you do not make a valid argument.I was carful to be more general and not directly point a finger at you . You were not so kind in referring my knowledge.
No one is denying that there are. Still the ratio is 97% to 3%.I get it everyone does not hold that view. But there are facts that cannot be denied unless one is totally oblivious to current events.
1. There are highly educated scientists on both sides of this issue.
Yes, that is to be expected, but you needn't worry as it will be much too late well before taxes are raised.2. Most solutions put forward take more wealth from the populace in the form of taxes or higher costs.
For the umpteenth time where is your evidence that climate change is benign.3. Many fear senerios stated in the past were not accurate.
The models based on the reality of climate change. Elsewhere, I have pointed out models have problems because there are so many variables that we don't have all the information needed, however the models are being constantly improved. If the deniers can come up improved models they will be able to make an impression.4. Computer models for future destruction are guesses at best, weathermen can't even accurately predict a few days out many times much less years down the road.
What is your point? In others words, how does past warming and cooling account for the cumulative effects of fossil fuel pollution from the beginning of the industrial revolution?5. The earth has warmed and cooled in history without the aid of gas powered cars, cow farts or any other aid from humanity.
For the umpteenth time I have not said it was benign, I have said it has been happening throughout history without the aid of mankind.For the umpteenth time where is your evidence that climate change is benign.
Coming to a conclusion from the past 100 years or so is not very scientific when considering 1000's of years.What is your point? In others words, how does past warming and cooling account for the cumulative effects of fossil fuel pollution from the beginning of the industrial revolution?
Okay, so that's a study that isn't from 20 years ago and that doesn't say we'd be underwater now, so it would appear to have nothing to do with my question.
I am sure you are well equipped to handle the concerns of the world.Then you should sell all your stuff and go live in a cave or whatever it was that Jesus said, and await the apocalpyse and leave the concerns of this world to the rest of us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?