Sandy was no coincidence: UN

[Metsfanmax]

Further, the UN is using Sandy as a way to get people to support climate change legislation, not climate change itself. They are basically saying "Look at what climate change did to New Jersey, New York, and New England, you need to pass those laws, cap and trade, emissions testing, whatever." I find it sort of disgusting, since I don't like when people use disasters to further their own agendas, but whatevs.

I find it beneficial when people use disasters to further the agenda of saving humanity. Humans apparently can't reason their way to preventing this problem before it happens, but maybe they can be convinced when they see the destruction it causes during their own lifetimes.

Right, because this particular disaster and the implications of what allegedly caused the disaster fuels your particular agenda (and the UN's agenda). If it did not fuel your agenda, you would not find it beneficial.

Saving humanity should be on everyone's agenda. It is a nonpartisan issue.

[thegreekdog]

Further, the UN is using Sandy as a way to get people to support climate change legislation, not climate change itself. They are basically saying "Look at what climate change did to New Jersey, New York, and New England, you need to pass those laws, cap and trade, emissions testing, whatever." I find it sort of disgusting, since I don't like when people use disasters to further their own agendas, but whatevs.

I find it beneficial when people use disasters to further the agenda of saving humanity. Humans apparently can't reason their way to preventing this problem before it happens, but maybe they can be convinced when they see the destruction it causes during their own lifetimes.

Right, because this particular disaster and the implications of what allegedly caused the disaster fuels your particular agenda (and the UN's agenda). If it did not fuel your agenda, you would not find it beneficial.

Saving humanity should be on everyone's agenda. It is a nonpartisan issue.

Saving humanity is a nonpartisan issue. How to save humanity is a partisan issue. Perhaps I'm not making myself clear (although niezstche understood the point).

It is not debatable that man-made climate change is occurring. What is debatable is how to address the issue. The UN has ideas on how to address the issue and is using Sandy, which likely did not occur because of climate change, as a way to swing the debate on how to address the issue. I think that's pretty ridiculous, although not surprising.

[Metsfanmax]

Further, the UN is using Sandy as a way to get people to support climate change legislation, not climate change itself. They are basically saying "Look at what climate change did to New Jersey, New York, and New England, you need to pass those laws, cap and trade, emissions testing, whatever." I find it sort of disgusting, since I don't like when people use disasters to further their own agendas, but whatevs.

I find it beneficial when people use disasters to further the agenda of saving humanity. Humans apparently can't reason their way to preventing this problem before it happens, but maybe they can be convinced when they see the destruction it causes during their own lifetimes.

Right, because this particular disaster and the implications of what allegedly caused the disaster fuels your particular agenda (and the UN's agenda). If it did not fuel your agenda, you would not find it beneficial.

Saving humanity should be on everyone's agenda. It is a nonpartisan issue.

Saving humanity is a nonpartisan issue. How to save humanity is a partisan issue. Perhaps I'm not making myself clear (although niezstche understood the point).

It is not debatable that man-made climate change is occurring. What is debatable is how to address the issue. The UN has ideas on how to address the issue and is using Sandy, which likely did not occur because of climate change, as a way to swing the debate on how to address the issue. I think that's pretty ridiculous, although not surprising.

Well, I take your point. Nevertheless, I disagree with your interpretation of the status quo. I do not think that what they are doing is trying to convince people to take one particular approach for ending climate change compared to another one, because I do not think that most countries are actually taking this problem seriously right now and doing anything at all substantial to fix it.

[thegreekdog]

I don't disagree with any of that.

[Serbia]

Saving humanity should be on everyone's agenda. It is a nonpartisan issue.

It's not on my agenda. I really couldn't give a damn.

[Metsfanmax]

Saving humanity should be on everyone's agenda. It is a nonpartisan issue.

It's not on my agenda. I really couldn't give a damn.

I will kill you.

[Serbia]

Saving humanity should be on everyone's agenda. It is a nonpartisan issue.

It's not on my agenda. I really couldn't give a damn.

I will kill you.

Come at me bro.

[2dimes]

Our nine year old daughter said "My feet have something to say, come at me bro!" I laughed and my wife was out of the loop.

[Dukasaur]

Our nine year old daughter said "My feet have something to say, come at me bro!" I laughed and my wife was out of the loop.

I'm with your wife. WTF is that supposed to mean?

[Falkomagno]

Global warming existed ... temperatures have been flat for the past decade.

That is the biggest falsehood told in the last few years,

Oh I guess Forbes is a tool of the quacks then.

Although global temperatures have been pretty flat despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels since the big 1998 El Nino, no one that I know disputes that climate changes. Nor do they doubt that there has been very mild warming since the mid-19th century when our planet began thawing out of the last “Little Ice Age” (predating the Industrial Revolution). And while most acknowledge that greenhouse warming may well be a contributing factor, it is also true that a great many very informed scientists believe that any human contributions to that influence are negligible, undetectable and thereby grossly exaggerated by alarmists, while far more important natural climate drivers (both for warming and cooling), are virtually ignored. Particularly consequential among these are long-and short-term effects of ocean cycles along with changes in solar activity.

I won't comment on Forbes' reputation, but the author of that article is a professor of architecture. Why would you take him more seriously than actual climate scientists?

This is a beautiful example of elegant come back, exposing obvious flaws in the opposite argument. Well done.

[2dimes]

Our nine year old daughter said "My feet have something to say, come at me bro!" I laughed and my wife was out of the loop.

I'm with your wife. WTF is that supposed to mean?

http://bit.ly/vRVHyl

[Ray Rider]

Global warming existed ... temperatures have been flat for the past decade.

That is the biggest falsehood told in the last few years,

Oh I guess Forbes is a tool of the quacks then.

Although global temperatures have been pretty flat despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels since the big 1998 El Nino, no one that I know disputes that climate changes. Nor do they doubt that there has been very mild warming since the mid-19th century when our planet began thawing out of the last “Little Ice Age” (predating the Industrial Revolution). And while most acknowledge that greenhouse warming may well be a contributing factor, it is also true that a great many very informed scientists believe that any human contributions to that influence are negligible, undetectable and thereby grossly exaggerated by alarmists, while far more important natural climate drivers (both for warming and cooling), are virtually ignored. Particularly consequential among these are long-and short-term effects of ocean cycles along with changes in solar activity.

I won't comment on Forbes' reputation, but the author of that article is a professor of architecture. Why would you take him more seriously than actual climate scientists?

This is a beautiful example of elegant come back, exposing obvious flaws in the opposite argument. Well done.

That would be an obvious flaw if the author were presenting his own research and data regarding climate change when that isn't his field. However he's simply compiling the findings and statements of various experts in the field and other influential leaders, which is perfectly valid and his own degree in no way invalidates the article. Kudos to Metsfan for staying civil, but the argument with the obvious flaw is Metsfan's, who is employing an ad hominem attack instead of discussing anything worthwhile such as the statements contained within the article which could be damaging to his view.

As for my own view, I believe climate change is obviously occurring now just as it always has throughout all of history up to this day--ice ages, medieval warm period and all. I remain very critical of the anthropogenic effect on climate change however because we only have accurate data from a very short amount of time relative to the earth's history (less than 100 years), and even within that small amount of time our data is very sketchy (NASA admitting that it's own reading of the global mean surface temperature is very faulty; temperature stations continuing to be used even as the local warming effect of cities encroach on them and skew their readings; the lower number of temperature stations in the Canadian Arctic, etc are a few issues I can remember off the top of my head having read about recently). In addition, environmentalists and climate agencies have a vested interest in blowing the issue out of proportion because it will guarantee the continuation of funding for their jobs and research; also as was already mentioned, intergovernmental agencies with a yearning for greater power and control see this as great boon for their cause. Coupled with that is the obviously questionable nature of every slightly unusual weather phenomenon of the last 40 years being blamed on anthropogenic global cooling/global warming/climate change/whatever the most recent bandwagon is. These, in addition to various other reasons, leave me highly doubtful of anthropogenic climate change as it is being spoon-fed to the general public.

Rather than taxing people and companies for a gas which we and all animal life exhale daily (CO2) and contributes only minutely to the total amount in the earth's atmosphere, I highly support the control of chemicals and pollution which we know is clearly harmful on the environment. Visit China's factories, check out the environmental regulations and safety protocols of Russian reactors such as Chernobyl, or research the Love Canal and Hooker Chemical disaster if you want to know the type of things I believe we should place a high level of importance on avoiding in the future.

[thegreekdog]

Ray makes some good points. I'm not much of an environmentalist, but my priority would be to clean up things that hit closer to home (human calamity notwithstanding). Although I'm a big proponent of the free market system, I'm utterly disgusted with the Marcellus Shale issues in Pennsylvania. It's not because the government isn't doing anything about it, it's because the government is actively supporting the businesses that would do the fracking and would pollute the water. The Pennsylvania government makes it as easy as possible... tax credits, lower taxes, sales tax breaks. Will it increase employment? Yes, but it scares the shit out of me from an environmental perspective.

Small steps would make a big difference and something that people can actually get behind. Instead of this madeup crap used to scare people about how Sandy is the result of global climate change.

[Metsfanmax]

That would be an obvious flaw if the author were presenting his own research and data regarding climate change when that isn't his field. However he's simply compiling the findings and statements of various experts in the field and other influential leaders, which is perfectly valid and his own degree in no way invalidates the article. Kudos to Metsfan for staying civil, but the argument with the obvious flaw is Metsfan's, who is employing an ad hominem attack instead of discussing anything worthwhile such as the statements contained within the article which could be damaging to his view.

Calling into question the credentials of someone who is discussing science is hardly an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be if I said "the author of that article is a noted racist." Pointing out that the author of this article has no particular expertise in climate science, yet is discussing it as if he has an informed opinion on the issue, is a valid critique. (I could debunk the article if anyone is willing to listen, but I doubt that)

The reason why I find this so distressing is that people don't seem to do this in other fields. People are perfectly willing to accept the scientific consensus about the theory of gravity, or the theory of electric fields in transistors that make their computers work, or the thermodynamics that makes their refrigerators work. There are surely a minority that disagree with the consensus view, but I don't often see laypersons seeking out these minority view points. None of these people object to all of the scientific hard work and consensus thinking that led us to the modern conveniences we have. Yet on two specific issues (evolution and climate change), it's like everyone's a scientist, and thinks they have a legitimate contribution to the subject. The reasoning is so absurd that I'm appalled that it needs to be pointed out, but evidently it does. Climate scientists overwhelmingly believe in anthropogenic global warming, but a large number of people are willing to listen to non-scientists collate the views of the minority that does not. If that's really how you feel, throw away your modern electronics and go live off of the grid.

[thegreekdog]

That would be an obvious flaw if the author were presenting his own research and data regarding climate change when that isn't his field. However he's simply compiling the findings and statements of various experts in the field and other influential leaders, which is perfectly valid and his own degree in no way invalidates the article. Kudos to Metsfan for staying civil, but the argument with the obvious flaw is Metsfan's, who is employing an ad hominem attack instead of discussing anything worthwhile such as the statements contained within the article which could be damaging to his view.

Calling into question the credentials of someone who is discussing science is hardly an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be if I said "the author of that article is a noted racist." Pointing out that the author of this article has no particular expertise in climate science, yet is discussing it as if he has an informed opinion on the issue, is a valid critique. (I could debunk the article if anyone is willing to listen, but I doubt that)

The reason why I find this so distressing is that people don't seem to do this in other fields. People are perfectly willing to accept the scientific consensus about the theory of gravity, or the theory of electric fields in transistors that make their computers work, or the thermodynamics that makes their refrigerators work. There are surely a minority that disagree with the consensus view, but I don't often see laypersons seeking out these minority view points. None of these people object to all of the scientific hard work and consensus thinking that led us to the modern conveniences we have. Yet on two specific issues (evolution and climate change), it's like everyone's a scientist, and thinks they have a legitimate contribution to the subject. The reasoning is so absurd that I'm appalled that it needs to be pointed out, but evidently it does. Climate scientists overwhelmingly believe in anthropogenic global warming, but a large number of people are willing to listen to non-scientists collate the views of the minority that does not. If that's really how you feel, throw away your modern electronics and go live off of the grid.

Why do you think people take a minority position and run with it in the area of climate change?

My answer is that the people that hold the majority position (which is correct) are advocating great changes to the ways people live, which in turn will create hardship for those people. The theory of gravity or electric fields or thermodynamics aren't used to force or convince people to change their way of life for the worse.

[Metsfanmax]

Why do you think people take a minority position and run with it in the area of climate change?

My answer is that the people that hold the majority position (which is correct) are advocating great changes to the ways people live, which in turn will create hardship for those people. The theory of gravity or electric fields or thermodynamics aren't used to force or convince people to change their way of life for the worse.

That's true, it has only given changes to their lives for the better, in which case people gladly accept it. They only run to the minority when we realize that all of these modern conveniences that we've got are something that we should not abuse.

[thegreekdog]

Why do you think people take a minority position and run with it in the area of climate change?

My answer is that the people that hold the majority position (which is correct) are advocating great changes to the ways people live, which in turn will create hardship for those people. The theory of gravity or electric fields or thermodynamics aren't used to force or convince people to change their way of life for the worse.

That's true, it has only given changes to their lives for the better, in which case people gladly accept it. They only run to the minority when we realize that all of these modern conveniences that we've got are something that we should not abuse.

Okay, except that loggers, oil workers, coal workers, truck drivers, taxi drivers, manufacturing workers, and a host of others would probably say they aren't abusing modern conveniences by working in jobs that negatively affect the environment.

[Metsfanmax]

Why do you think people take a minority position and run with it in the area of climate change?

My answer is that the people that hold the majority position (which is correct) are advocating great changes to the ways people live, which in turn will create hardship for those people. The theory of gravity or electric fields or thermodynamics aren't used to force or convince people to change their way of life for the worse.

That's true, it has only given changes to their lives for the better, in which case people gladly accept it. They only run to the minority when we realize that all of these modern conveniences that we've got are something that we should not abuse.

Okay, except that loggers, oil workers, coal workers, truck drivers, taxi drivers, manufacturing workers, and a host of others would probably say they aren't abusing modern conveniences by working in jobs that negatively affect the environment.

So? Serial killers would probably say that they aren't really doing anything wrong either. They are all hurting humanity (as well as a plethora of other species on this planet), and they need to stop. We tend to take this more seriously when one person can be pointed to as the wrongdoer, or one person can be pointed to as the victim, but that doesn't make the wrong that these people are doing any less dangerous. That being said, it's not the fault of the loggers or the coal workers any more than it is the rest of Western society for demanding all of these conveniences. Those people are just providing a service that people are demanding, and they're not inherently to blame for that. That is why change has to happen at the collective, societal level to get people to stop the demand (i.e. through governmental action).

I contribute to the problem just like everyone else. During cold months like we have now, I drive every day to campus instead of cycling in, because I need to work to sustain myself. If we invested more in public transportation, I would contribute less to the problem, and so would everyone else. But I can't fund the public transportation by myself; everyone needs to chip in to make it happen.

[2dimes]

Our nine year old daughter said "My feet have something to say, come at me bro!" I laughed and my wife was out of the loop.

I'm with your wife. WTF is that supposed to mean?

Oh, and no one in our house has watched enough Jersey any show to pick it up from TV. I know it from here and she heard people saying it at Elementry school.

That's why I laughed.

[thegreekdog]

Why do you think people take a minority position and run with it in the area of climate change?

My answer is that the people that hold the majority position (which is correct) are advocating great changes to the ways people live, which in turn will create hardship for those people. The theory of gravity or electric fields or thermodynamics aren't used to force or convince people to change their way of life for the worse.

That's true, it has only given changes to their lives for the better, in which case people gladly accept it. They only run to the minority when we realize that all of these modern conveniences that we've got are something that we should not abuse.

Okay, except that loggers, oil workers, coal workers, truck drivers, taxi drivers, manufacturing workers, and a host of others would probably say they aren't abusing modern conveniences by working in jobs that negatively affect the environment.

So? Serial killers would probably say that they aren't really doing anything wrong either. They are all hurting humanity (as well as a plethora of other species on this planet), and they need to stop. We tend to take this more seriously when one person can be pointed to as the wrongdoer, or one person can be pointed to as the victim, but that doesn't make the wrong that these people are doing any less dangerous. That being said, it's not the fault of the loggers or the coal workers any more than it is the rest of Western society for demanding all of these conveniences. Those people are just providing a service that people are demanding, and they're not inherently to blame for that. That is why change has to happen at the collective, societal level to get people to stop the demand (i.e. through governmental action).

I contribute to the problem just like everyone else. During cold months like we have now, I drive every day to campus instead of cycling in, because I need to work to sustain myself. If we invested more in public transportation, I would contribute less to the problem, and so would everyone else. But I can't fund the public transportation by myself; everyone needs to chip in to make it happen.

I mean all that stuff you typed is great and all, but it's not really real... you know what I'm saying? A person with a job as a truck driver isn't going to give a shit about all the victim effect and society chipping in stuff if he or she loses his or her job. The "we all have to make sacrifices" hurts Bill "the truck driver with three kids to support" a lot more than it hurts Mets "has to walk to his college classes."

[Metsfanmax]

I mean all that stuff you typed is great and all, but it's not really real... you know what I'm saying? A person with a job as a truck driver isn't going to give a shit about all the victim effect and society chipping in stuff if he or she loses his or her job. The "we all have to make sacrifices" hurts Bill "the truck driver with three kids to support" a lot more than it hurts Mets "has to walk to his college classes."

This whole thing about Bill losing his job is a complete non sequitur. We're asking everyone to chip in so that Bill can drive an energy efficient truck instead of one that destroys the environment.

[thegreekdog]

I mean all that stuff you typed is great and all, but it's not really real... you know what I'm saying? A person with a job as a truck driver isn't going to give a shit about all the victim effect and society chipping in stuff if he or she loses his or her job. The "we all have to make sacrifices" hurts Bill "the truck driver with three kids to support" a lot more than it hurts Mets "has to walk to his college classes."

This whole thing about Bill losing his job is a complete non sequitur. We're asking everyone to chip in so that Bill can drive an energy efficient truck instead of one that destroys the environment.

How about Bill the coal miner or Bill the logger or Bill the fracker or Bill the oilman. Bill will be chipping in a lot more than you or me.

[Metsfanmax]

I mean all that stuff you typed is great and all, but it's not really real... you know what I'm saying? A person with a job as a truck driver isn't going to give a shit about all the victim effect and society chipping in stuff if he or she loses his or her job. The "we all have to make sacrifices" hurts Bill "the truck driver with three kids to support" a lot more than it hurts Mets "has to walk to his college classes."

This whole thing about Bill losing his job is a complete non sequitur. We're asking everyone to chip in so that Bill can drive an energy efficient truck instead of one that destroys the environment.

How about Bill the coal miner or Bill the logger or Bill the fracker or Bill the oilman. Bill will be chipping in a lot more than you or me.

Bill will have to find a job at a nuclear power plant or at a solar panel manufacturer.

[rdsrds2120]

I mean all that stuff you typed is great and all, but it's not really real... you know what I'm saying? A person with a job as a truck driver isn't going to give a shit about all the victim effect and society chipping in stuff if he or she loses his or her job. The "we all have to make sacrifices" hurts Bill "the truck driver with three kids to support" a lot more than it hurts Mets "has to walk to his college classes."

This whole thing about Bill losing his job is a complete non sequitur. We're asking everyone to chip in so that Bill can drive an energy efficient truck instead of one that destroys the environment.

How about Bill the coal miner or Bill the logger or Bill the fracker or Bill the oilman. Bill will be chipping in a lot more than you or me.

Is the benefit of having those Bills as workers working to (idirectly or ndirectly) damage the environment disproportionately more than the benefits of them not having those jobs at all? There's a point where the protecting the integrity of the environment should come before protecting a group of people's jobs. Where about do you think that point lies?

BMO

[Metsfanmax]

One of the last remaining criticisms goes down...

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace ... 21129.html