climate change goes from warning to reality

[GK4Herd]

For crying out loud where do I begin?

Let's start with Ohio herd. Seriously, if you're going to post links to support your point of view at least try to find one that doesn't post fake news. This is the same site that published an article that 9/11 was the result of controlled demolition, and that Stanley Kubrick worked with NASA to stage the moon landings. Jesus...read something from a legitimate source, not something you googled to try lend credibility to your position. For the record, a list of fake news sites...

http://www.fortliberty.org/hoax-sites.html




And Andy (and Ohio)...Al Gore's use of energy is proof of his hypocrisy and doesn't even address the legitimacy of global warming.

And Rock98...I find it fascinating that deniers choose to ignore or marginalize the mountains of evidence and the overwhelming majority of scientist giving credence to global warming yet they are perfectly willing to give weight to a new study supported by a couple of scientist that hasn't really experienced any scrutiny from the scientific community.

And are you actually insinuating that adding color to the sun is to make it appear hotter or give the illusion of brightness? Because I'm pretty sure it's both hot and bright.

 

[Walden Pond]

Believe he was talking about Ohio Stadium, I was there Saturday and it was pleasant for football despite being the middle of summer. Of course waldens seat are probably closer to the sun than mine.

I was in the shade most of the game. Just that first hour of being in the sun burned me. Still enjoyed the hell out of it and ready to do it again next Saturday.

The main thing I wanted to see was Ohio State not play like Tennessee. Holy cow, did Tennessee ever suck on Thursday. Can't believe they're still that awful. Thank goodness for Urban Meyer or we could be watching Butch Jones-esque garbage here.

 

[ohio herd]

For crying out loud where do I begin?

Let's start with Ohio herd. Seriously, if you're going to post links to support your point of view at least try to find one that doesn't post fake news. This is the same site that published an article that 9/11 was the result of controlled demolition, and that Stanley Kubrick worked with NASA to stage the moon landings. Jesus...read something from a legitimate source, not something you googled to try lend credibility to your position. For the record, a list of fake news sites...

http://www.fortliberty.org/hoax-sites.html




And Andy (and Ohio)...Al Gore's use of energy is proof of his hypocrisy and doesn't even address the legitimacy of global warming.

And Rock98...I find it fascinating that deniers choose to ignore or marginalize the mountains of evidence and the overwhelming majority of scientist giving credence to global warming yet they are perfectly willing to give weight to a new study supported by a couple of scientist that hasn't really experienced any scrutiny from the scientific community.

And are you actually insinuating that adding color to the sun is to make it appear hotter or give the illusion of brightness? Because I'm pretty sure it's both hot and bright.

okay try this one on since you are now acting like EG. Attack any source that has an article you don't like. Here is Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ic-global-warming-consensus-not/#118965081690
here is a small part of the article.
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

 

[i am herdman]

So...this increase in carbon that has occurred since the dawn of Industrial Age is a natural cycle? In past history the carbon entered the atmosphere due to very distinct reasons...pre photosynthetic land and oceans, tectonic plate activity, volcanoes, etc. So...where is this magical cyclic carbon coming from today? Not volcanos...proven. Not tectonic plate activity and thermal vents...proven. Not lack of planetary vegetation...still plenty.

We know how much carbon we are putting in the air. It's a quantifiable number. We measure the saturation at points all over the world including antarctica where the saturation went over 400 ppm in the first time since man walked the earth. Antarctica...so we can't blame the measurement on local concentration.

But your reply is some flippant conservative answer that totally ignores science and reality. But that's ok for you. You have enough people who also are ideologically driven to the point that you will be patted in the back with your answer and high fived. That's enough for you to continue to spout the same nonsensical stuff that has zero basis in science. Talk about a boys club of self validation.

Seriously...Id love to drink a beer with you and argue as much as anyone here. But why not try to read up on the issue...really learn about it outside of the self perpetuation stuff spewed by the ideological mainstream.

Because I have 1,000 other things to worry about.It is really that simple. Global warming, to me, is a non issue. I sincerely believe there are far more important things to worry about.

And, I say this as a person who lives in a state that has a large coast and owns property directly in a coastal area.

 

[extragreen]

Really, on their own? How? Conservatives usually support the family structure and probably give more to charities that liberals.

Yes, on their own. How many times have you and other conservatives on this board whined about welfare for the poor while never mentioning corporate welfare? As an example, house republicans vote to cut SNAP by $40 BILLION, so I'm wondering how much they voted to cut corporate welfare? And yes, conservatives support the family structure.....their own.

Conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. Of the charity given to the churches only 10% to 25% end up being spent on social welfare purposes.

 

[i am herdman]

Yes, on their own. How many times have you and other conservatives on this board whined about welfare for the poor while never mentioning corporate welfare? As an example, house republicans vote to cut SNAP by $40 BILLION, so I'm wondering how much they voted to cut corporate welfare? And yes, conservatives support the family structure.....their own.

Conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. Of the charity given to the churches only 10% to 25% end up being spent on social welfare purposes.

Damn it. I meant to delete that because I didn't want to talk to you in this thread about this crap.

We have fat poor people in this country. They can afford a budget cut.

 

[extragreen]

Damn it. I meant to delete that because I didn't want to talk to you in this thread about this crap.

We have fat poor people in this country. They can afford a budget cut.

Once again moron, research why poor people have a greater tendency to be overweight. I don't doubt you wouldn't want to discuss this, since once again the truth hurts.

 

[GK4Herd]

okay try this one on since you are now acting like EG. Attack any source that has an article you don't like. Here is Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ic-global-warming-consensus-not/#118965081690
here is a small part of the article.
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

First...I apologize for seeming combative. I try not to get that way. But you have to admit that an article from yournewswire.com is like linking the National Enquirer. Forbes is better, but this is an opinion piece. But I won't belabor that point.

Okay...let's look at a few of the articles claims. This 31,000 number comes from a petition of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (OISM). The pettiton claims that scientist are supporting 2 statements. They are...

• The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
• There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

There has been zero evidence from anyone that originated this petition to support the first statement. Where's the studies to support that assertion? And the second statement stands refuted by the vast majority of scientific work on the issue. In the field of climate study the consensus that disagree with this survey is overwhelming. This from Skeptical Science highlights three studies to show the scientific community is not divided on this issue...


Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.


Feel free to click the links and review the studies. This isn't a survey. This is actual scientific work.

And let's discuss the 31,000 number fro the OISM survey. It seems like a large number. But is it? This represents only .3% of the US science graduates.

This from Skeptical Science again...

OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

 

[GK4Herd]

Because I have 1,000 other things to worry about.It is really that simple. Global warming, to me, is a non issue. I sincerely believe there are far more important things to worry about.

And, I say this as a person who lives in a state that has a large coast and owns property directly in a coastal area.

Well...I have to admit I've been looking forward to the Ryder Cup. So I guess I'm kind of the same way.

 

[Walden Pond]

If it's the old cheap food makes you fat, it's not true. I still eat the same slop I always have, just a lot less of it. And so I stay an 85 year old skeleton freezing in sub-80 degree temperatures.

Rich or poor, food is food. You eat a lot and don't exercise, you get fat.

 

[Rock98Dog]

Yep, I'm behind people in convenience stores all the time buying pop, chips and candy with a SNAP card. One day there was a woman with 3-4 kids and she spent $32 on such snacks. I actually asked her why she would do that when she could get the same stuff at a grocery store for less than half that, or better yet, buy 2 loaves of bread, three pounds of lunchmeat, and a bunch of canned goods for the same amount? Of course, she looked at me with a stupid blank stare and just left with her rugrats.

You just can't fix stupid. If you doubled the money you gave them they would still waste it and not eat well. You really think if you gave them more money they would go buy fruits and vegetables with it and prepare home cooked meals? Nope, they would just buy orange Gatorade instead of generic orange drink in the gallon jug.

 

[extragreen]

Of course you did. All in an attempt to help the poor little stupid lady with the rugrats, right? It's hard to imagine such compassion, truly.

 

[TwolfHerdfan]

China burns 52% of the worlds coal, India 13%. The US? 12%. Brazil's burning of the rain forest has major ramifications as well.
US fossil fuel emissions are at a 20 year low. We can't do it alone. Until the US and world leaders have the gonads to tell China to man up and stop the madness, not much else the US can do to make up for China's irresponsibility.

The other nasty byproduct of the war on coal - tens of thousands of families now on government assistance - at the cost of US taxpayers.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

I really love hearing a Republican say we should tell China to man-up. Before you free trading union killers got involved China was piss poor to the point it still had regular famines.

 

[GK4Herd]

China burns 52% of the worlds coal, India 13%. The US? 12%. Brazil's burning of the rain forest has major ramifications as well.
US fossil fuel emissions are at a 20 year low. We can't do it alone. Until the US and world leaders have the gonads to tell China to man up and stop the madness, not much else the US can do to make up for China's irresponsibility.

The other nasty byproduct of the war on coal - tens of thousands of families now on government assistance - at the cost of US taxpayers.

It is definitely a world issue. The US alone can't make the difference. The good news is that 195 countries have agreed to join in the effort including China and the US.

Although China and the US get much of the blame, they are actually in the top 10 of all countries in switching to renewables. Sweden leads and is on track to be 100% renewable. Surprisingly Costa Rica and Nicaragua are 2nd and 3rd. China is 8th and the US is 10th. China and the US due to population are also the top users of fossil fuels for obvious reasons. But both countries have made recent efforts. Here's the list...

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/04/how-11-countries-are-leading-the-shift-to-renewable-energy/

 

[GeauxHerd]

Climate Change is real. Just ask the people who once inhabited Doggerland. If they had known about climate change, Mainland europe and great brittain might still be connected.

 

[Walden Pond]

I actually asked her why she would do that

I advise staying away from these people as much as possible.

If you're a doctor and something happens where maybe you can save their life, then go for it. If not, just hold your nose and try to divert your view to something more pleasant. Anything will likely do.

I wear dark sunglasses in the store these days to deal with the overall awfulness of the ordeal of grocery shopping. I'd pay someone to do it for me, but then I'd have to deal with them so there's no point. If a robot would do it, now we're talkin'.

 

[i am herdman]

Once again moron, research why poor people have a greater tendency to be overweight. I don't doubt you wouldn't want to discuss this, since once again the truth hurts.

Because they eat shi* food and sit around.

Again, we have fat poor people. I have been to the third world where people are really poor and they are not fat. Our fat people can run down to the 7/11 and buy shit food and Mtn Dew.

 

[andy4theherd]

I wear dark sunglasses in the store these days to deal with the overall awfulness of the ordeal of grocery shopping. I'd pay someone to do it for me, but then I'd have to deal with them so there's no point. If a robot would do it, now we're talkin'.

Kroger online ordering is what you need. we've had it in Lexington since Feb. you go online and pick out your crap, schedule a time the next day to pickup, and drive to a designated area where a guy loads your car. he scans your credit card and you're gone. the store is about 5 minutes from my house. i pull out of my driveway and return with $300+ of groceries within 20 minutes. and the website keeps track of everything you buy so it doesn't take any time at all to re-order. it is extremely beneficial to us with 4 kids. i imagine it's great for introverts or those that just hate other people as well.

 

[extragreen]

Because they eat shi* food and sit around.

Again, we have fat poor people. I have been to the third world where people are really poor and they are not fat. Our fat people can run down to the 7/11 and buy shit food and Mtn Dew.

Of course some fat poor people have bad diets. Explain to us how they can afford good diets. Do you think all low income areas have farmers markets for fresh food and health food stores? If not, why aren't these markets there? What percentage of poor people are aware of what foods cause obesity? Explain to us how poor people can afford to travel to other neighborhoods to shop for healthier foods that are more expensive. Once again, as dependable as the sun rising in the morning, you attack the poor, and never mention the problems we have with the wealthy.

 

[i am herdman]

Of course some fat poor people have bad diets. Explain to us how they can afford good diets. Do you think all low income areas have farmers markets for fresh food and health food stores? If not, why aren't these markets there? What percentage of poor people are aware of what foods cause obesity? Explain to us how poor people can afford to travel to other neighborhoods to shop for healthier foods that are more expensive. Once again, as dependable as the sun rising in the morning, you attack the poor, and never mention the problems we have with the wealthy.

I am not attacking the poor. I am saying we have poor fat people in this country. You and I agree they eat crap food.

 

[raleighherdfan]

You simply don't need a "farmers market" to get fresh food in supermarkets these days. I don't care if you don't have tons of "organic" options. Skip the soda and chips aisle and go to the produce section.

And how is it, the poor don't understand what causes obesity? Haven't they been educated by the public schools for decades? They have been feasting on liberal compassion.

 

[Walden Pond]

Imagine the sheer amount of food these people eat. It's a lot. It takes a lot of food to be fat. These people are eating entire boxes in one sitting, entire bags of chips, etc. I know. I've done it.

If you just eat less, you can still eat all the junk and not be a cow. It's all about the amount of food.

Not only that, but if you gave them all the free health food they wanted they wouldn't take it. They would be just like me, say it tastes like shit and go for the junk food. I think the whole junk vs. health food thing is all bull anyway. Even rich people are fat, a lot of them. It's amount of food. Rich people don't sit around gnawing on plants all day unless they're models.

 

[extragreen]

I am not attacking the poor. I am saying we have poor fat people in this country. You and I agree they eat crap food.

Of course you're attacking the poor. You think most if not all poor people are that way because they're lazy and stupid, and all of them game the system. Yes, we both agree that they eat poor choices of food, but we disagree entirely as to why.

 

[i am herdman]

Of course you're attacking the poor. You think most if not all poor people are that way because they're lazy and stupid, and all of them game the system. Yes, we both agree that they eat poor choices of food, but we disagree entirely as to why.

They do it because we pay for it and it is easy.

I've got poor family members who go(and their kids) down to the gas station and buy pure crap stuff at higher prices because it is easy and fun instead of going right up the road a minute to the kroger or grocery store. A Slurpee and King Dons are better than some real food.

The poor in Honduras fight the cattle for a piece of lettuce.

 

[GK4Herd]

The obesity problem is a complicated issue. It isn't as simple as saying these people are fat because they're lazy. Of course poor choices and laziness is a factor but there's more to it than that. Poverty is certainly a factor. But the role of poverty has had different effects historically on obesity. During the depression the poor were extremely thin and malnourished while the rich or well off were the ones likely to be overweight. That dynamic has completely reversed itself today.

Education (really understanding nutrition and diet), cultural considerations (how were you raised with food), heredity, and readily available high calorie food that saturates the landscape are all factors. Think back to the 60s and 70s of the amount of fast food restaurants available compare to today. Go to Walmart or any grocery chain and look at the availability of cheap high calorie processed foods. It's a different world than it was thirty to 40 years ago.

But the more studies done on obesity the more evidence that it isn't entirely in our own hands. Stress stimulates the production of cortisol in our body that leads to obesity. Those who are economically comfortable have far less stress in their lives. Gut bacteria is starting to become something that is gaining steam as a factor in obesity. There have been tons of studies that show that some people have a far greater uphill battle than others.

I've lost around 40 pounds by walking 5 miles a day, lifting weights four days a week, and counting calories. But it is a constant battle with me. I let up an ounce and I gain a pound. I eat grilled chicken almost daily. It is a huge effort to keep from backsliding. I know people who are fit like to down people who are overweight. I understand their motivation. By saying that everyone who is fat is so because they are lazy is the same as saying...look at me...I'm fit because I'm not lazy and work harder. Where there is some truth to that it isn't the whole story.

 

[ohio herd]

The obesity problem is a complicated issue. It isn't as simple as saying these people are fat because they're lazy. Of course poor choices and laziness is a factor but there's more to it than that. Poverty is certainly a factor. But the role of poverty has had different effects historically on obesity. During the depression the poor were extremely thin and malnourished while the rich or well off were the ones likely to be overweight. That dynamic has completely reversed itself today.

Education (really understanding nutrition and diet), cultural considerations (how were you raised with food), heredity, and readily available high calorie food that saturates the landscape are all factors. Think back to the 60s and 70s of the amount of fast food restaurants available compare to today. Go to Walmart or any grocery chain and look at the availability of cheap high calorie processed foods. It's a different world than it was thirty to 40 years ago.

But the more studies done on obesity the more evidence that it isn't entirely in our own hands. Stress stimulates the production of cortisol in our body that leads to obesity. Those who are economically comfortable have far less stress in their lives. Gut bacteria is starting to become something that is gaining steam as a factor in obesity. There have been tons of studies that show that some people have a far greater uphill battle than others.

I've lost around 40 pounds by walking 5 miles a day, lifting weights four days a week, and counting calories. But it is a constant battle with me. I let up an ounce and I gain a pound. I eat grilled chicken almost daily. It is a huge effort to keep from backsliding. I know people who are fit like to down people who are overweight. I understand their motivation. By saying that everyone who is fat is so because they are lazy is the same as saying...look at me...I'm fit because I'm not lazy and work harder. Where there is some truth to that it isn't the whole story.

I feel your pain