Of course it is as Biden has proven to be as bad, if not worse than Trump. — Jack Rogozhin

Not on the environment— which is what I was talking about.

But in the last two years, they also passed the IRA and canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, strengthened car emission standards, etc. Actions at the SEC, EPA, energy, and interior have all been much better than under Trump — by any metric.

That’s not to say it’s perfect or satisfactory— just better than the prior administration. I think that’s obvious.
— Mikie

Sorry, but none of those vague, unspecific suppositions counter what I showed above: Biden has been worse on the environment than Trump — Jack Rogozhin

Canceling the XL and passing the IRA is hardly “unspecific suppositions.” They’re facts.

As far as the actions of the departments I mentioned— I can get into that more.

They exactly counter the claim that Biden is worse than Trump on the environment.

Because you just said too much is made about it. And now you are making too much about it, actually worrying about my vote, even — Jack Rogozhin

In the sense that it’s not our only political move. I’ve now repeated that three times. Why is it not clear?

Voting is important. But it’s not the only thing we have.

And as I showed, votes going to West simply do not give a better chance to either Biden or Trump. — Jack Rogozhin

Simply declaring you “showed” things is meaningless. You haven’t once showed that. You’ve made statements that it isn’t true. And I see no serious reason to believe it.

even more anti-progressive than Trump. — Jack Rogozhin

So you’re actually arguing that the Biden administration is worse than the Trump administration in terms of progressive values.

That’s insane to me.

Sorry — I prefer Michael Regan as EPA administrator, not Scott Pruitt. Call me crazy. But you do you.

You clearly don't care enough about the environment as you are fine with Bidens' terrible environmental record, which is worse than Trump's — Jack Rogozhin

You really should educate yourself on the environmental record of the Trump administration. Your assessment is just ridiculous, I’m afraid.

Anyone pretending to care should progressive goals has the minimal moral responsibility to examine the real world impacts of government policy.

Sure, but we also have the choice to vote against both, work towards building a progressive third party — Jack Rogozhin

At the cost of electing Trump, I’m not sure it’s worth it. There’s ways to build a progressive movement beyond just voting. It starts in each state, and builds from there.

While Biden as a man might be repugnant and unacceptable, his appointments aren’t. In fact some are quite good.

We went backwards with Biden as he drilled more than trump, gave out more drilling licenses than Trump, pushed the horrendous Willow Project, and committed the worst act of eco-terrorism by OKing the sabotaging of the Nordstream pipeline — Jack Rogozhin

But in the last two years, they also passed the IRA and canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, strengthened car emission standards, etc. Actions at the SEC, EPA, energy, and interior have all been much better than under Trump — by any metric.

That’s not to say it’s perfect or satisfactory— just better than the prior administration. I think that’s obvious.

If this is true, then you shouldn't worrry about people voting their conscience. — Jack Rogozhin

Why? I didn’t say it isn’t important. It’s just not our sole political action. We should make sure we’re voting against the worst, ensuring the greatest impediment to our goals isn’t in office—then continue on with our work.

It doesn't give Trump a better chance as neither Biden nor Trump own West voters' votes, — Jack Rogozhin

Not owned, but most voting for West will have values and goals that will be much more likely to be obstructed (and in fact actively fought against) under a Trump administration than a Biden one. If we had ranked choice voting, I think Biden would come before Trump, in most cases.

That being said, these votes going to West (or staying home) simply gives Trump a better chance to win — at least in swing states. In Mass, it doesn’t matter much. In NH, it matters a great deal.

So I care about climate change. The IRA will help my neighbors and I get solar panels and heat pumps. That’s a good thing. Trump and the Republicans are literally running on dismantling all of that. If my voting for West just because it makes me feel better, ignoring the reality of a two-party system, comes at the real cost of electing Trump— I’ve shot myself in the foot.

It is Big Oil's fault, not mine. — Agree to Disagree

Correct.

Now go shill for oil companies elsewhere— and take your climate denial with you.

British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.

Underlying this is a conflict in how we imagine ourselves, as consumers or as citizens. Consumers define themselves by what they buy, own, watch – or don’t. Citizens see themselves as part of civil society, as actors in the political system (and by citizen I don’t mean people who hold citizenship status, but those who participate, as noncitizens often do quite powerfully). Too, even personal virtue is made more or less possible by the systems that surround us. If you have solar panels on your roof, it’s because there’s a market and manufacturers for solar and installers and maybe an arrangement with your power company to compensate you for energy you’re putting into the grid.

right now that best option is the Green party and Cornel West — Jack Rogozhin

I like Cornell West too. Of all the candidates so far, he's my favorite.

In the sad state of American political duopoly, it's going to be a Biden/Trump rematch. Those, unfortunately, are most likely going to be the choices. I prefer Biden in office -- not because I like Biden, but because I like a lot of his administrators and more of his policies than Trump's.

The environment is a good example: would we have the IRA with Trump in office? Of course not. That's not to say it was what it should have been -- we needed much more than that. But it's better than going backwards.

I think the problem is that too much is made about voting, as if that's our sole political power. So people, understandably, want to vote their conscience. I used to think along these lines myself. But once I saw the real, everyday impacts of having, for example, a reasonable and sympathetic secretary of labor, or a competent NLRB, or a head of the EPA that isn't an oil lobbyist -- to say nothing of the money allocated for state and local site cleanups, solar and wind subsidies, etc., I think being pragmatic is more important.

Yes, Cornell West is the best candidate. I wish he would become president and I hope he gains momentum. But if it comes to a Biden/Trump rematch, I don't see how voting for Cornell, however noble, doesn't simply give Trump (by far the worst of all three) a better chance at winning.

Young people seem to blame everyone except themselves (e.g. oil companies and older people). They refuse to take responsibility for their own carbon footprint and blame it all on the oil companies. — Agree to Disagree

lol. "Carbon footprint."

Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed.

Insulting me makes me less likely to do anything about climate change. — Agree to Disagree

You mean the blatant climate denier who pretends to care/know anything about the subject -- and repeatedly says that nothing can be done about it -- won't do anything if he's insulted?! Oh no!

Here are the parts of this news story that stand out to me: — Agree to Disagree

As you go on to quote the ultra right-wing government officials. That just happens to "stand out" to you. How predictably pathetic.

Go shill for the oil companies somewhere else.

trial in Montana going on right now. — Mikie

Posted this about two months ago.

Well, the result is in:

Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youths in a Landmark Climate Case

A bit of good news. Figured I’d share.

I read this too. Front page of the Sunday Times.

It’s a little misleading, I think. Emissions are still rising, oil drilling projects are still being done, transmission lines aren’t being built, solar and wind farms are being blocked or delayed— to say nothing about the Republicans grotesque game plan to reverse every regulation and incentive on the books and further accelerate fossil fuel use

That being said— this article does highlight some areas of hope.

Maybe you can pull up some of those articles from those eras, warning of global warming. I'm curious. — jgill

Here’s a reference:

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1

Even Exxon knew about climate change as early as 1977– from their own scientists.

Also worth googling Syukuro Manabe. His research is from the 60s. He’s also a Nobel prize winner.

Why don't you comment on what they say, rather than who they are? — Agree to Disagree

Because it’s cherry picked nonsense, of the Bjorn Lomborg variety.

—

So it’s just worth summarizing/repeating: Climate change is happening, and rapidly. We’re the cause. It’s an existential threat. The solutions are available; the obstacles are time and political will.

Scientists raised the issue of a possible pending ice age around about the mid 70's. — Agree to Disagree

Care you cite some articles?

Most scientists, even back then, were far more concerned about global warming — the effects of which were known and understood decades prior.

The consensus was hardly suggesting an ice age was imminent. There was speculation, among some scientists, about the cooling effect of aerosols. That’s all it was.

Odd that you don’t remember the warnings about global warming from back then. Talk about selective memory.

Read the link that I gave earlier about the Biogenic Carbon Cycle. — Agree to Disagree

So you literally quote from a MEAT COMPANY. No conflict of interest there, I’m sure.

Good lord.

His response: New ice age comes in the next 50 000 years, climate change happening now.

But that was decades ago. — ssu

Right. Yet that won’t stop ignoramuses from discussing it at length. “Scientists were screaming we were all gonna freeze to death in 10 years!”

It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic— and dangerous.

Oh, cool. Glad you knew that all along.

So you also know that the “coming ice age” you mentioned in your list of doom hysteria — not-so-subtly implying that climate change is (could be?) hysteria as well — is utter bullshit? Basically taken from one Newsweek article that did not once suggest this was a consensus among scientists anywhere CLOSE to AGW?

I’m sure you know that too.

The previous link that I gave you shows that cattle don't contribute much to the problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions. — Agree to Disagree

Cattle are the No. 1 agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable

They contribute a good deal to global warming. Try learning about the subject.

THE MYTH OF ThE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

For anyone who wants to learn about this very common, very tired, very stupid denialist trope.

Also, this is funny (and accurate):

It reminds me of the old trope "I'm not a racist, but..." where whatever follows the 'but' is bound to be something racist. — unenlightened

Right. No one is a climate denier these days — at least according to climate deniers.

Just like racism is a thing of the past — according to Fox News.

The cow fart angle is still a current concern. — Agree to Disagree

It’s not “cow farts.” Try reading about the subject.

I remember in 1976 (my first year at university, doing Chemistry Honours, Physics, and Biology) when the news of a possible pending Ice Age came out. — Agree to Disagree

:lol:

I think that’s climate denial bingo.

I am interested in looking at the possible solutions and working out which ones are likely to be effective and which ones are likely to be ineffective. — Agree to Disagree

Suddenly we’ve changed our stance, I see…

Please tell me some of the "plenty of solutions", and I will tell you why they won't work. — Agree to Disagree

Good to know you’re now miraculously “looking at which solutions are effective.”

Tell me some, and I’ll tell you how they’re complete crap, then support my claim with solid “evidence” like this: “Good luck with that.”

As in most cases where those with nothing left to say and no knowledge — or real wisdom — to impart, the latest climate denier has been reduced to platitudes about “both sides listening to each other” and other such sanctimonious vapidity. How pathetic.

Have you taken the time to think carefully about what I have said? I try to provide evidence to back up what I say. Have you looked at the evidence? — Agree to Disagree

Your “evidence” like “all these countries have many cows, so good luck with that’s methane problem” (your first example).

Don’t try to blame everyone else for your climate denial, ignorant stamens and weak “evidence” — which was refuted systematically by those who actually know something about the topic.

:up:

I would hope so.

Just a little review of this latest round of climate denial from the person who’s only recently joined the forum and is singularly interested in spreading nonsense about this one issue:

Many people seem to be paranoid about the use of crude oil. Crude oil is very useful for a lot of reasons. — Agree to Disagree

Yeah, that’s it — everyone is just paranoid.

But [climate scientists] have chosen to "hide" the actual temperatures from the public. — Agree to Disagree

Conspiracy.

It is almost like I was questioning your religion. — Agree to Disagree

(Common climate denial accusation— “the church of climate change,” etc)

Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year (COP) to the worlds top tourist spots to discuss how everyone else should stop flying, etc. — Agree to Disagree

(Common denialist accusation.)

Are the people who live in Moscow “suffering” from global-warming? Or are they having street parties to welcome global-warming? — Agree to Disagree

I believe that there are no solutions that aren't doomed from the start. And many of the proposed solutions will actually make things worse. — Agree to Disagree

(Never talks about why other than it’s cold in sone places and that India and China have a lot of cows so, you know, “good luck with that”. Solid argument.)

Currently sea level is rising by about 3 mm per year. I don't need to worry for about 333 years. — Agree to Disagree

(Wrong— It’s closer to 4mm a year.)

There is not much political will to do things that people don't want (if you live in a democracy). — Agree to Disagree

Wrong — poll after poll show people want their governments to do something.

I believe that it is incorrect to hold those companies responsible for 71% of global emissions. The companies are only supplying what people demand. — Agree to Disagree

Wrong— another myth in defense of industry (no surprise there).

Can you provide links to dispute the claim that cold kills more than heat? — Agree to Disagree

I did — and then no further response about that; subject changed to how because we all evolved from Africa, we can handle the coming heat. :roll:

-----
All the makings of a varsity athlete.

(To those following along, notice how we've already strayed from anything to do with science, where some work actually needs to be done to follow along, into the subjective, flimsy world of "you're mean to me; I'm misunderstood; you call me names; you're not addressing my red herrings") — Mikie

This was just worth repeating.

Humans evolved in Africa, near Kenya. So humans should be able to tolerate temperatures which are close to the temperatures found in Kenya. — Agree to Disagree

This is why humans can tolerate heat better than they can tolerate cold. — Agree to Disagree

I’m not going to simply refute stupid claim after stupid claim. You’re changing the subject — again. If you want to continue, respond to what’s been said so far and stay on topic. Otherwise, I’m not interested in your particular brand of climate denial.

You'd have to be an idiot to think he believed the election was stolen. This is a recurring strategy he uses: "If I win I'm great, if I lose it was rigged against me." It's the sore loser strategy and we all remember it from childhood -- but Trump never outgrew it. — GRWelsh

Yes.

But on the other hand, he’s such a deeply pathological liar that he may have convinced himself somewhere along the way that what he was saying was true.

So if the charges rely on him being something other than a pathological, sociopathic, narcissistic liar— I think it’s doomed to fail.

For me there are no "facts" that are beyond dispute.
— Agree to Disagree

'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts' ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan. — Quixodian

Yes indeed. But, again, pretty standard (ie, average) for a climate denier.

I posted about this a while back under “selective skepticism.” It’s motivated by something else— in this case, propaganda-driven denial; but not always. Sometimes by money or the feeling of superiority/specialness.

In any case, it usually presents as “ah shucks I’m just asking questions and showing a healthy bit of skepticism” and then fairly quickly reduces to “scientists were wrong about the earth being flat” and, eventually, “there are no facts.”

Yes, maybe when I walk out the door I’ll fly away. Maybe. Who knows? Prove it can’t happen— and cite your source!

So how do we know that they are not wrong again? — Agree to Disagree

Creationists say the same thing about evolution— especially when it’s shown that scientists were off about some hypothesis— like ideas about what killed the dinosaurs.

Yours is a god-of-the-gaps approach to climate denial, even going so far as using the fact that it’s WORSE than some scientists anticipated as proof that they may be wrong about all of it. Truly pathetic. But also average.

It’s worth pointing out that @ChatteringMonkey provided substantive responses to @Agree to Disagree, all of which was ignored in favor of other posts— posts that can be brought into the realm of subjectivity, where anyone can have an opinion.

Please state clearly which you think kills more, heat or cold? — Agree to Disagree

Heat.

Can you provide links to dispute the claim that cold kills more than heat? — Agree to Disagree

Yep:

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold

Extreme heat and extreme cold both kill hundreds of people each year in the U.S., but determining a death toll for each is a process subject to large errors. In fact, two major U.S. government agencies that track heat and cold deaths--NOAA and the CDC--differ sharply in their answer to the question of which is the bigger killer.

It goes on from there. But it does involve reading, and a bit of nuance when assessing studies— so feel free to ignore it so you can go on happily with your denial.

Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed.

Mikie, are you saying that sometimes (climate) scientists get it wrong? That their assessment of the speed of change was not correct.

How do we know that they are not wrong about other things? — Agree to Disagree

I’m sure they are. Other scientists will figure out where and how. But I’m not delusional enough to believe I know where they’re wrong or why.

They underestimated the speed of change. No one claimed to have the level of certainty that they do that climate change is happening, and rapidly.

This means climate change is actually worse than expected, btw. You know, that phenomenon that “maybe” is a good thing, as you absurdly and ignorantly suggested?

What gives you the right to deny them the benefits that they have gained. — Agree to Disagree

Next time someone’s house is on fire, we should treat it as a balancing act. Clearly there’s benefits. Who are we to deprive them of heat in winter? The smoldering ashes are a great source of warmth. Maybe they can re-sell the charcoal.

Ohio Voters Reject Constitutional Change Intended to Thwart Abortion Amendment

Republicans sure know how to grind onwards despite all logic and evidence to the contrary.

I guess you can get away with deluding yourself — about what majorities of Americans want (fake news polling), about climate change, about guns, about voter fraud and “stolen” elections — only to a point. Eventually the facts of reality are going to prove you wrong.

In short, the Republicans are this guy:

Since this thread has devolved into stupidity, let me try to bring it back to reality:

Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, river and lake ice is breaking up earlier, plant and animal geographic ranges are shifting, and plants and trees are blooming sooner.

Effects that scientists had long predicted would result from global climate change are now occurring, such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves.

"The magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change — modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.

The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since pre-Industrial times (starting in 1750).1 The global average temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees C (about 3 degrees F) within the next few decades. These changes will affect all regions of Earth.

The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.

— from the “alarmists” and “scaremongers” of NASA, who definitely don’t know as much as the climate deniers (oops, I mean “skeptics”) on this thread.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

For the last 40 years we have been told that the world will end in 10 years. — Agree to Disagree

scaremongering — Agree to Disagree

But which kills more, heat or cold? — Agree to Disagree

And the climate denial just keeps on coming.

shellacking next year — Quixodian

Let’s hope.

Understanding climate denial used to seem easy: It was all about greed. Delve into the background of a researcher challenging the scientific consensus, a think tank trying to block climate action or a politician pronouncing climate change a hoax and you would almost always find major financial backing from the fossil fuel industry.

Those were simpler, more innocent times, and I miss them.

True, greed is still a major factor in anti-environmentalism. But climate denial has also become a front in the culture wars, with right-wingers rejecting the science in part because they dislike science in general and opposing action against emissions out of visceral opposition to anything liberals support.

And this cultural dimension of climate arguments has emerged at the worst possible moment — a moment when both the extreme danger from unchecked emissions and the path toward slashing those emissions are clearer than ever.

[…]

Back in 2009, when Democrats tried but failed to take significant climate action, their policy proposals consisted mainly of sticks — limits on emissions in the form of permits that businesses could buy and sell. In 2022, when the Biden administration finally succeeded in passing a major climate bill, it consisted almost entirely of carrots — tax credits and subsidies for green energy. Yet thanks to the revolution in renewable technology, energy experts believe that this all-gain-no-pain approach will have major effects in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But not if Republicans can help it. The Heritage Foundation is spearheading an effort called Project 2025 that will probably define the agenda if a Republican wins the White House next year. As The Times reports, it calls for “dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government and boosting the production of fossil fuels.”

What’s behind this destructive effort? Well, Project 2025 appears to have been largely devised by the usual suspects — fossil-fueled think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute that have been crusading against climate science and climate action for many years.

But the political force of this drive, and the likelihood that there will be no significant dissent from within the G.O.P. if Republicans do take the White House, has a lot to do with the way science in general and climate science in particular have become a front in the culture war.

Paul Krugman (I gifted a free article.)

I think you don't realise what a couple of degrees of global warming really means. — ChatteringMonkey

Like with most climate deniers, this will slowly become more apparent.

But I appreciate you taking over the annoying job of explaining things. I think I’m tapped out.

Lest we get too caught up in the complete nonsense being spewed by climate deniers on this page, I want to remind everyone of the facts (mentioned before and completely ignored, incidentally):

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



We haven’t gone over 300 ppm in 800 THOUSAND years. Hence the rapid rise in temperatures.

If we really don’t yet understand why that’s a bad thing— for everyone — then fortunately there’s Google.

Alarmists want you to believe that any temperature increase anywhere is bad. But there are many places in the world where a small temperature increase would be good. — Agree to Disagree

“Alarmists.” :lol:

If the earth was abnormally cold in the Little Ice Age (pre-industrial times) then the temperature recovering to normal (i.e. global warming) is probably a good thing. — Agree to Disagree

I’m glad to see the fully-fledged denier in you coming out. My senses still serve me well I see.

Even after all the politician-like statements about how you “of course” don’t deny climate change. The climate ALWAYS changes blah blah blah.

First nothing can be done because it’s cold in Russia.

Then scientists around the world are misleading people by focusing on anomalies and averages, rather than the “actual” temperatures that you alone have put nicely in a graph.

Then “what about the little ice age?”

Now: maybe a warming planet is a good thing?

So very predictable. Anyone who can’t see this is a complete imbecile.

Global warming is slow and small compared to seasonal warming. — Agree to Disagree

Wow.

Yeah, you’re right— I guess you’re really on to something! Keep up the great work.

- global average temperature has increased rapidly
- global CO2 emissions has increased rapidly since the Industrial Revolution

As CO2 increases, temperature increases. Hence why the average goes up. An average means there will be some areas that are still cold, even very cold (like Russia, Greenland, Canada, the Antarctic, parts of Alaska, parts of Argentina, etc.).