Climate change

[johnu]

Of course. That is why it was called the little ice age! Perhaps you should compare to data from warmer periods, such as the medieval warm period, Roman warm period, or climatic optimum. You will then see similarities.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[johnu]

GOP Senate Candidate: Blame The Sun For Climate Change, Not Humans

 

I guess that settles the cause of global warming.

[johnu]

Yes, insects, like all animals, are expecting to flourish.

 

Florida’s red tide crisis shows how climate change will make the world an ugly place

 

Hmm, these red tide alarmists are trying to create panic. Stop that B-)

[Daniel1960]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Maybe you aren't aware, but

 

Earth's sixth mass extinction event under way, scientists warn

 

You don’t need a scientist to know what’s causing the sixth mass extinction

 

Not all insects, and certainly not all animals are expected to flourish, unless you consider going extinct as flourishing. e.g Animals like polar bears depend on Arctic ice for their lifestyle. The loss of Arctic ice is causing many of them to starve.

 

And not all plant life will do well. Colder weather species will usually do poorer as temperatures get too warm, and changing weather patterns, drought and decreased rainfall in some areas will be fatal for many plants and animals in the affected regions.

 

Those scientists proclaiming the start of a sixth mass extinction are pointing to habitat destruction, overhunting and fishing, and pollution as the main causes (in that order). Climate change is just a minor footnote in the potential causes. The recent loss of sea ice has not caused polar bears to starve. You need to stop watching propaganda clips. Expanding sea ice was a larger detriment, as it closed feeding waters in the spring, when mother bears needed to find food for their young cubs. Polar bear populations have been relatively stable in recent years following increasing numbers after the 1973 hunting agreement.

 

Of course any changes will not benefit all life. This has been true throughout history. However, warmer temperatures, and the resulting higher rainfall and reduced freezes will be generally beneficial to life in general. Additionally, higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will generate greater plant growth and allow expansion into higher altitudes.

[PassedOut]

Additionally, higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will generate greater plant growth and allow expansion into higher altitudes.

Rising sea levels will force people into higher altitudes. Too bad that there are already people settled in to block that expansion. Maybe the people in the way will support a doofus who says, "Build a wall!"

B-)

[johnu]

Those scientists proclaiming the start of a sixth mass extinction are pointing to habitat destruction, overhunting and fishing, and pollution as the main causes (in that order). Climate change is just a minor footnote in the potential causes. The recent loss of sea ice has not caused polar bears to starve. You need to stop watching propaganda clips. Expanding sea ice was a larger detriment, as it closed feeding waters in the spring, when mother bears needed to find food for their young cubs. Polar bear populations have been relatively stable in recent years following increasing numbers after the 1973 hunting agreement.

 

Of course any changes will not benefit all life. This has been true throughout history. However, warmer temperatures, and the resulting higher rainfall and reduced freezes will be generally beneficial to life in general. Additionally, higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will generate greater plant growth and allow expansion into higher altitudes.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Apparently there is no global warming, and if there was global warming, it would be great for everybody and everything. So why are all these scientists so worried? They need to be like the global warming deniers.

 

[Daniel1960]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Apparently there is no global warming, and if there was global warming, it would be great for everybody and everything. So why are all these scientists so worried? They need to be like the global warming deniers.

 

 

Yet, these scientists point to global warming as barely a footnote in species extinctions, right up there with the potential for nuclear war. Solving global warming will have a negligible effect on species extinctions. That is why the scientists are so worried. When it comes down to science vs propaganda, I prefer the science side. You would do well to follow suit.

[Winstonm]

Paraphrasing W.C. Fields: "I'm very fond of scientists, girl scientists around eighteen to twenty."

[johnu]

When it comes down to science vs propaganda, I prefer the science side. You would do well to follow suit.

 

So you believe in science. Then why would you propagate nonsense like being able to determine temperatures of heat waves from the number of deaths that took place over a century ago compared to deaths in recent years???

 

What the article failed to mention is that fewer people are dying from the heat than in the past. The deadliest heat wave in the U.S. occurred in 1901, killing almost 10,000 people. The 2015 heat wave in India and Pakistan killed less than 5000, considerably less not even taking into account the huge population difference. The devastating 2003 heat wave killed more, but most of those deaths were attributed to the accumulation of pollution and toxins in the stagnant air.

[Daniel1960]

So you believe in science. Then why would you propagate nonsense like being able to determine temperatures of heat waves from the number of deaths that took place over a century ago compared to deaths in recent years???

 

I do not know where you get your crazy ideas. Will the temperatures measured during heat waves and corresponding deaths are related, one is not a direct measure of the other. This is another reason why should stick to the science, and ignore propaganda.

[Winstonm]

Those scientists proclaiming the start of a sixth mass extinction are pointing to habitat destruction, overhunting and fishing, and pollution as the main causes (in that order). Climate change is just a minor footnote in the potential causes. The recent loss of sea ice has not caused polar bears to starve. You need to stop watching propaganda clips. Expanding sea ice was a larger detriment, as it closed feeding waters in the spring, when mother bears needed to find food for their young cubs. Polar bear populations have been relatively stable in recent years following increasing numbers after the 1973 hunting agreement.

 

Of course any changes will not benefit all life. This has been true throughout history. However, warmer temperatures, and the resulting higher rainfall and reduced freezes will be generally beneficial to life in general. Additionally, higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will generate greater plant growth and allow expansion into higher altitudes.

 

Dan's picture should be on this page:

 

The effort to undermine the credibility of scientific research on man-made global warming has continued since the early 1990s after the IPCC had started calling the alarm. Nevertheless because of mounting scientific evidence44 it is becoming increasingly untenable to deny reality, which has led conservative and libertarian think tanks to modify their tactics. Increasingly, to paraphrase James Hoggan, “nondenier deniers” are replacing “deniers”. These nondenier deniers are “people who put themselves forth as reasonable interpreters of the science, even as allies in the fight to bring climate change to the public’s attention. But then they throw in a variety of arguments that actually undermine the public appetite for action.”45 Libertarian and conservative climate experts increasingly recoil from denying the fact that the planet is warming, but they usually lose no time in qualifying their acceptance with two caveats. First, they assert that the negative repercussions of a global rise in temperatures are being grossly overstated in order to alarm the public and decision-makers into accepting the environmentalist agenda. Second, nondenier deniers argue that actions to mitigate the effects of global warming will be economically destructive and environmentally insignificant.

 

Causation or correlation?

[Cyberyeti]

I do not know where you get your crazy ideas. Will the temperatures measured during heat waves and corresponding deaths are related, one is not a direct measure of the other. This is another reason why should stick to the science, and ignore propaganda.

 

And medicine of course hasn't advanced so the death figures are comparable, ridiculous.

[Al_U_Card]

Dan's picture should be on this page:

 

 

 

Causation or correlation?

The effort to undermine the credibility of climate science has been nicely accomplished by all of the alarmist climatologists. Serial fabricators of specious analysis and projections about what computers programmed for catastrophy can tell us about a future where CO2 controls the climate. Credibility indeed.

[johnu]

I do not know where you get your crazy ideas. Will the temperatures measured during heat waves and corresponding deaths are related, one is not a direct measure of the other. This is another reason why should stick to the science, and ignore propaganda.

 

Absolutely hilarious. I got this crazy idea from you :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

What the article failed to mention is that fewer people are dying from the heat than in the past. The deadliest heat wave in the U.S. occurred in 1901, killing almost 10,000 people. The 2015 heat wave in India and Pakistan killed less than 5000, considerably less not even taking into account the huge population difference. The devastating 2003 heat wave killed more, but most of those deaths were attributed to the accumulation of pollution and toxins in the stagnant air. The article also failed to mention that maximum temperatures are on the decline. In the U.S., maximum temperature have declined 0.8F from the early 20th century to the early 21th century.

 

According to NOAA, 15 new maximum temperatures were set so far this summer. Consider that there are over 100,000 reporting stations, this amount to less than 0.1%. That would be an average summer, if we had 1000 years of temperature data for all the reporting stations. By comparison, 1936 saw the most all-time maximum temperature records set with 793, over fewer stations.

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

 

You were trying to convince somebody in the peanut gallery that temperatures weren't really getting hotter.

[Daniel1960]

And medicine of course hasn't advanced so the death figures are comparable, ridiculous.

 

Which is probably the main reason that people should not believe propaganda, especially articles appearing in the Guardian, on FOX News, NPR, Breitbart, The Times, Post, Blaze, etc.

 

False claims like, "Heat already kills more Americans than floods, hurricanes or other ecological disasters" can be easily checked against reliable data.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/236509/number-of-fatalities-from-natural-disasters-in-the-us/

 

Globally, heat-related deaths are even less than in the U.S., largely due to earthquakes, tropical activity and flooding.

 

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/annual-disaster-statistical-review-2016-numbers-and-trends

[Cyberyeti]

Which is probably the main reason that people should not believe propaganda, especially articles appearing in the Guardian, on FOX News, NPR, Breitbart, The Times, Post, Blaze, etc.

 

False claims like, "Heat already kills more Americans than floods, hurricanes or other ecological disasters" can be easily checked against reliable data.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/236509/number-of-fatalities-from-natural-disasters-in-the-us/

 

Globally, heat-related deaths are even less than in the U.S., largely due to earthquakes, tropical activity and flooding.

 

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/annual-disaster-statistical-review-2016-numbers-and-trends

 

Deaths actually are never a reliable measure, it's more a measure of where the disaster happens to hit. Also the US is not where the bulk of the effect of warming happens.

 

Densely populated low lying areas of the developing world are the places to look for effects of floods/cyclones etc, but most Americans and particularly their politicians don't seem to care about those apart from a marginal interest in the Caribbean.

[Daniel1960]

Deaths actually are never a reliable measure, it's more a measure of where the disaster happens to hit. Also the US is not where the bulk of the effect of warming happens.

 

Densely populated low lying areas of the developing world are the places to look for effects of floods/cyclones etc, but most Americans and particularly their politicians don't seem to care about those apart from a marginal interest in the Caribbean.

 

So true. The largest death tolls recently were the Indonesian earthquake/tsunami and the Haiti earthquake. The largest death tolls in natural disasters have been recorded in China and India, which is more a reflection of the dense population. Also, death tolls from heat waves in the developing world have been much lower than in the U.S. and Europe. Whether this is greater tolerance to the heat or less temperature variability is hard to say.

[johnu]

Which is probably the main reason that people should not believe propaganda, especially articles appearing in the Guardian, on FOX News, NPR, Breitbart, The Times, Post, Blaze, etc.

 

More crap from you. Equating pure propaganda sites like Breitbart, and almost exclusively propaganda sites like Fox Propaganda with mainstream sites like NPR, NY Times, Washington Post is pure right fringe nonsense.

[johnu]

As Climate Change Ravages The Great Barrier Reef, Tourists Flock To Say Goodbye

 

Why isn't the coral flourishing in warmer waters when climate change deniers claim warmer is better? This must be a conspiracy of the highest order :o Somebody needs to harshly interrogate those coral reefs to find out why they are trying to make the client change deniers look bad.

[Daniel1960]

More crap from you. Equating pure propaganda sites like Breitbart, and almost exclusively propaganda sites like Fox Propaganda with mainstream sites like NPR, NY Times, Washington Post is pure right fringe nonsense.

 

Typical left fringe nonsense; think left wing sites are mainstream.

[johnu]

Typical left fringe nonsense; think left wing sites are mainstream.

 

The ultra right fringe has moved so far to the right that even moderate and centrist viewpoints seem to have become left wing. "Papers" like the Washington Post and NY Times are the standard when it comes to journalism in this country.

 

Some people just "can't handle the truth".

[Daniel1960]

The ultra right fringe has moved so far to the right that even moderate and centrist viewpoints seem to have become left wing. "Papers" like the Washington Post and NY Times are the standard when it comes to journalism in this country.

 

Some people just "can't handle the truth".

 

Just because they are standards, does not mean they are not left wing. The Wall St Journal is a standard also, but that does not make it moderate or centrist. Is your quote self-reflective.

[johnu]

Just because they are standards, does not mean they are not left wing. The Wall St Journal is a standard also, but that does not make it moderate or centrist. Is your quote self-reflective.

 

No, but just because they aren't ultra right fringe doesn't make them left wing. The WS Journal editorials are (ultra) right fringe and the rest of the paper is centrist so it has a split personality. If you exclude the right fringe editorials, the WS Journal is rated at centrist.

 

Media Bias Factcheck rates different news sites.

 

Washington Post and New York Times are rated as Left-Center Bias. I imagine that when you are doing major investigative pieces about Dennison related scandals and law breaking that your mix of stories will fall left of center. Fox Propaganda is rated as Right Bias which is further right than Right-Center Bias. Breitbart is rated under Questionable Sources. Anything rated toward the middle can be considered moderate by definition. As you get further right or left, you are less moderate.

 

Somehow I find it not surprising that you have such a high regard for Breitbart.

[kenberg]

I got a slow start this morning, now it is 87 degrees and sunny, and I still need to go out and pick the raspberries. The polar bears will have to fend for themselves, I have a real crisis here.

 

I haven't made a totally absurd comment for a while (or so I claim) so I thought I was due.

 

[Winstonm]

 

I haven't made a totally absurd comment for a while (or so I claim) so I thought I was due.

 

Not to worry - there has been lots of cover for you in that aspect. ;)

 

(Ex: New York Times and Breitbart are equivalent news sources)