I’m impressed by this article at the UK Independent. It’s rare that Warmist actually recommend Warmists get off their duffs and do something within their own lives
- Make meat a treat (go without meat a few days a week. Actually, you should give it all up, because it’s evil for climate change)
- Drive with smooth style (drive slower and use less AC. Actually, you should just stop driving altogether)
- Don’t over-boil the kettle (only use the water you need, a decent real environmental idea, subsumed under the banner of Hotcoldwetdry)
- Turn off appliances at night (a smart idea for everyone, again, subsumed under the banner of HCWD)
- Adjust your computer power (see previous)
- Walk more (stop using fossil fuels)
- Eat seasonably and locally (reduce your “carbon footprint”. Seriously, this is England. Do you actually want to eat local foods?)
- Take short, sharp showers (another good environmental idea ruined by Warmists)
- Receive less junk mail (apparently, one can request to be left off mailer lists in the UK, and by doing so, you’re saving Gaia from a fever!)
- Encourage others to do the same (boom, I love that. Warmists walking the talk and telling other Warmists to do the same.)
There are lots of other things Warmists can do. But, they mostly won’t. Because this is really about pushing hardcore Leftist policies, not science.
Even with liberals taking these steps (do you really think conservatives drive Prius’?), atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, driving an increase in heat retention by the Earth. Liberals will have to do more, and so will conservatives. (Some of the more stupid cons even vow to increase their carbon footprint to show those dang liberals a thang or two!).
Your claim that global warming is a hoax designed by communists to take over human civilization on Earth borders on psychopathology in the real world, but is pretty much normal in far-right la-la land.
You and your ilk state you will take global warming seriously only when liberals stop using any and all fossil fuels. Why would you even say that if you believe it’s all a hoax? Either global warming is a hoax or it isn’t. Why make your position conditional on the actions of others? Again, though, this is diagnostic of conservative authoritarian thought processes (such as they are), untethered to facts and reality. You can simultaneously hold comfortably two conflicting intellectual positions and not see the conflict, e.g., “We need to cut federal spending to the bone but increase funding to the CDC.”
Can’t seem to find the link to the UK Independent article.
Again, all increases in CO2 levels in the past have lagged warming. Never have temperatures risen after CO2 level increased. Maybe this is why every climate model has failed miserably.
Another ‘again’. None of us deny that the climate is changing or is changing. What we argue is causation. There is no proof that climate change is being caused by man. This is a dynamic planet and as such, things change. Including the climate. Always has and always will.
Some things that vlimate change deniers can do.
Try not yo laugh when other denies td use the Bible as a reference source
Try to act surprised when told that yes while it is true that Antarctic sea ice is at a high record it totals only 2% of the ice in Antactica
When cherry picking oven temps focus only on what appears to show a lack of waing DO MOT. Mention the fact yhT surface temps have warmed twice as fast as expected
Never mention that over the last 150 years the admitted rise in temps has continually had pauses and then accelerated temp increases
Never indicate that past histories of temp increases are explained by conditions other than an increase in CO2
Doing ANY of these things would/could result on losing current status as a climate demiast
As a matter of fact, yes. I’ve sold plenty to people on the right, along with other hybrids. I like Prius’, comfy drive. Conservatives drive them for practicality, libs for status.
Strange that the warming isn’t happening at this time.
Liberals will have to do more, and so will conservatives. (Some of the more stupid cons even vow to increase their carbon footprint to show those dang liberals a thang or two!).
And there it is yet again: Warmists refuse to practice what they preach unless everyone else is forced into the same scheme.
Wow John. Next time put the crack pipe down before posting please.
um, what? I really hope you are writing posts with a smartphone, john. Otherwise, I am very concerned. I mean that seriously. Your gibberish comments are getting worse
Jeff,
You don’t even know where measures of CO2 are taking place, how they are measured and what is the raw data. All you do is constantly say that a trace gas has increased by a statically insignificant amount. Then with the CO2 increasing, as in your model, the temperature is not steadily increasing and you have no answer for this. Then you can only attribute CO2 increase to humans and don’t desire to acknowledge natural forces. When presented with the fact we are closer to the sun, you discount this and any other reasonable explanation of climate, if indeed climate is changing. Then you only answer to this oh so horrible event of climate change is to change the government to a communistic one and micro control everyone, as well as rendering them poor and totally dependent on government largesse. Then after all this, you tell us that you own a corporation, make a profit, did not contribute your patents to the common good (despite the fact that you did not develop them and it was the government that did so), and you don’t give your accumulated wealth to the needy. You desire for illegals to take the jobs of the middle class, thus impoverish them and further degrade the middle class. You want prices to rise as a result of an increased minimum wage and increased cost of energy. In short, you are the biggest hypocrite of all.
John,
It appears that you are texting while driving your 18 wheeler and smoking dope at the same time.
‘You and your ilk state you will take global warming seriously only when liberals stop using any and all fossil fuels.” No, dilbert, we’re saying we will think about taking your crap seriously when you take it seriously. You’re like someone who wants to outlaw smoking but still blows through two packs a day.
John is not only on crack, but obviously has no idea where or how NOAA, RSS, or HADCRUT get their numbers in the first place. BTW, any warmists want to explain why the CAGW crowd switched from “global warming” to “climate change?” Anyone? Bueller?
Teach, agree that Priuses (Prii?) are appreciated across the spectrum. Me, I think they’re a great backup given our increasingly-creaky power grid. Much better than true plug-ins, in fact.
True story: a few years back there was a terrible ice storm in the northeast. A large part of Massachusetts went without power for weeks. February I think. Anyway, one fellow did quite well. When the power went out he hooked an inverter to his Prius in the garage. Ran lights, space heater and some other stuff that way. Got through the outage nicely.
P.S. Most of the CAGW crowd are too young to remember the 1970s, when there was widespread concern about global cooling. Go back and read the periodicals of the time. The proposed solutions? Exactly the same now proposed for warming. Sorry. Didn’t buy it then, not buying it now.
dave,
Sentence by sentence: Untrue. Untrue. Untrue. True! (What natural forces are causing the steady increase in CO2?). Untrue and sooo stupid. Untrue. Untrue. Really untrue, not to mention ignorant. Untrue. Untrue. Your opinion, which I don’t respect.
And here we see this ridiculous argument being brought up by Jeffery again.
Answer this Jeffery: “Has the earth’s climate remained the same since its formation? If not, were those changes due to CO2 in the atmosphere or other, natural causes?”
Your AGW god has no clothes, Jeffery.
Who established the baseline climate optimum? Who said that any change from this point is bad, detrimental, and ecologically a disaster. What is that point? In what year was the optimum climate? how is change from that point detrimental? What year? — 1492,1720, 1888, 1934, 1970?
The warmists are all hysterical over climate change but have not established the baseline from which to measure the change. Bogus Science is just BS.
When hysterical warmists take their own Bovine Scatology seriously and change their lifestyle, I will pay attention. Lead by example and maybe you will have followers.
There is no evidence of gods, miracles, demons, angels or magic.
dave stated that I’m ignoring the natural processes that are causing the steady increase in CO2. So I asked. You can’t answer because the INCREASE in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution is proven to be from burning fossil fuels. This is not even debatable. Are you seriously making the argument that the current rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 is not man-made? Atmospheric CO2 has been 180-280 ppm for about a million years – in the past 100 years it’s shot up to 400 ppm with no top in sight. The increase correlates with the amount of fossil fuels were burning. Are you seriously Denying that the rapid run-up in CO2 is from human burning of fossil fuels??
The CURRENT rapid increase in CO2 is from fossil fuels. The previous increases were not from fossil fuel burning. See the difference?
Jeff,
The temp has been going up since the beginning of agriculture 8000 years ago. Your statements on CO2 are bogus.
This is not even debatable.
Oh my foolish nonfriend, yes it is, and your climate models are only as good as the data entered into them.
dave typed: “The temp has been going up since the beginning of agriculture 8000 years ago.”
That is untrue. The mean surface temperature has been slowly but steadily DECREASING for the last 5000 years or so until about 100 years ago when it started shooting up. Look at the figures in this reference – as far as I know, these figures represent what we know about Holocene termperatures.
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/the-two-epochs-of-marcott/
If you or Teach have more compelling data that shows steady warming you should share it with the rest of the world.
In one thread, we find that Deniers believe 1) the current rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 is not man-made and 2) that the Earth has been steadily warming for the past 8000 years. Both of these beliefs have been easily proven to be untrue.
What that I said about CO2 do you find bogus? Please be specific.
My statements on CO2 are very simple
Levo,
That the increased CO2 is man-made is a fact, not dependent upon climate models.
You look foolish, arrogant and especially, ignorant.
That may be debatable, but of course, that is not the argument and you know it.
The argument is the effect or lack of effect CO2 has.
If people who are against science like yourself were correct, the models would match up with observations and data.
The models don’t match so all you have left is to call others what you in fact are.
qc,
One lie at a time, please. Conservatives leap from falsehood to falsehood, changing the subject along the way.
That WAS this argument and you know it.
The INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 seen the past century is a result of fossil fuel burning.
Now you bring up whether the greenhouse effect exists. It does.
What you really want to know is whether CO2-dependent greenhouse effect is the ONLY input of the mean global surface temperature. It is not. But you know that.