How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[Rukentuts]

There was a total solar irradiance-induced warming period after that, which itself has been replaced with a cooling trend, for years now. True facts.

NASA and NOAA data (just two examples of a plethora) disagree.

[Kasierith]

NASA and NOAA data (just two examples of a plethora) disagree.

In general, I just resort to the compilation of data by the UNFCCC whenever making a point about climate change; they probably present the most coherent and organized response concerning global warming among the many organizations that have submitted studies on it.

[bergmann620]

You said "force" when you meant "encourage". Because reality doesn't actually fit your rhetoric, so you need to exaggerate beyond all reason.

I agree with your critique, but to his point...

We are(were?) offering a tax break that is paid for out of the general fund on a car that is out of the reasonable price range of 80% of Americans after said tax break.

So, my wife and I are paying (admittedly a statistically insignificant amount, but the point stands) taxes used to subsidize a car being bought by people much better off than us, that we could never responsibly afford.

To top that off, the 'environmental' savings of a Volt over a comparable Civic or gas-powered Prius is miniscule.

These are the kinds of policies that only serve to inflame the general public. To people barely able to afford to put gas in their 14-year old Honda's, people driving around in a $35K Volt look like dickheads that are driving around on the public's dime.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Endus, with all due respect, there is ZERO EVIDENCE THAT HUMANS AFFECT THE ATMOSPHERE/ ECOSYSTEM/ ENVIROMENT. Go look up the word "evidence" then go look up the International Geophysical Year of 1957. That was the first year of accurate global temperature-taking and was the hottest year on record, til '96. There was a total solar irradiance-induced warming period after that, which itself has been replaced with a cooling trend, for years now. True facts.

The fact that you added ecosystem and environment to that mix scares the absolute shit out of me. Go outside and pour some bleach on the ground. Congratulations, you just negatively effected both the environment and ecosystem.

The fact that you said it with such conviction...just wow.

[Endus]

I agree with your critique, but to his point...

We are(were?) offering a tax break that is paid for out of the general fund on a car that is out of the reasonable price range of 80% of Americans after said tax break.

So, my wife and I are paying (admittedly a statistically insignificant amount, but the point stands) taxes used to subsidize a car being bought by people much better off than us, that we could never responsibly afford.

To top that off, the 'environmental' savings of a Volt over a comparable Civic or gas-powered Prius is miniscule.

These are the kinds of policies that only serve to inflame the general public. To people barely able to afford to put gas in their 14-year old Honda's, people driving around in a $35K Volt look like dickheads that are driving around on the public's dime.

And none of that was "forced" on anyone.

It's a democratically elected government. Nobody is being enslaved. You don't always get your way, but that's how society works. That was the issue; not whether current "green" car tech is ideal, but the claim that it's being "forced" on people.

[Kasierith]

The fact that you added ecosystem and environment to that mix scares the absolute shit out of me. Go outside and pour some bleach on the ground. Congratulations, you just negatively effected both the environment and ecosystem.

The fact that you said it with such conviction...just wow.

Now now, you can't objectively prove that people can pour bleach on the ground. If you do it yourself, it's anecdotal and you're biased. If you launch a study on it, I can point to a few times where bleach wasn't poured on the ground, and that will show that bleach isn't poured and you're a left wing sheeple obsessed with the environment. Maybe if you keep on studying bleach being poured on the ground for 50+ more years, which might be about how much longer my bleach company will last before the bleach runs dry, I might listen, but you're just doing subjective speculation until then.

That's what the counter-AGW argument sounds like to me.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Thanks, but I'll focus on the reaction and politics of it.

That what we're actually on about anyway.

That people would rather focus on the politics of GCC and not on the issue itself is the entire problem. Especially with the denier field. They'd rather get muddied and bogged down in politics than science and fact.

[Daelak]

Endus, with all due respect, there is ZERO EVIDENCE THAT HUMANS AFFECT THE ATMOSPHERE/ ECOSYSTEM/ ENVIROMENT. Go look up the word "evidence" then go look up the International Geophysical Year of 1957. That was the first year of accurate global temperature-taking and was the hottest year on record, til '96. There was a total solar irradiance-induced warming period after that, which itself has been replaced with a cooling trend, for years now. True facts.

Posts like these and of Riddler's, etc., just shows how strong one's own mind is to prop up a belief. When you have every major scientific body, including the science academies in every single first and second world nation recognizing and understanding the implications of global warming, and you YOURSELF cannot come to the same conclusion, you are living a delusion. When you start talking of conspiratorial theories of "enviro-terrorists" in government "tricking" the public into more taxation for their "lavish grant money", versus the reality of the cumulative data, then you need to re-check your position.

[Dunefire]

Endus, with all due respect, there is ZERO EVIDENCE THAT HUMANS AFFECT THE ATMOSPHERE/ ECOSYSTEM/ ENVIROMENT. Go look up the word "evidence" then go look up the International Geophysical Year of 1957. That was the first year of accurate global temperature-taking and was the hottest year on record, til '96. There was a total solar irradiance-induced warming period after that, which itself has been replaced with a cooling trend, for years now. True facts.

I've been alive since 1974, my earliest memory of summers have them at 80-85 with peaks of 90....now 85-90 degree days are the norm with peaks of 100......just by my EXPERIENCE i think that SOMETHING is going on. Is it us or is it possibly or position in the orbit being effected by outside sources, or is it the big hole in the ozone layer that has been growing since I was a child? I don't know what for certain but something is happening.

I'm not even touching the ecosystem/environment topics there...this would turn into a manifesto on just how stupid that you truly are.

[Rukentuts]

but you're just doing subjective speculation until then.

The irony is that the counter-AGW arguments are often rife with subjective speculation themselves: like economy, lifestyle, and whatnot.

[Kasierith]

The irony is that the counter-AGW arguments are often rife with subjective speculation themselves: like economy, lifestyle, and whatnot.

Yup; though the greatest subjective aspect is choosing to completely ignore the actual issue because they don't like the potential (and often exaggerated) political and economic ramifications of responding to it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Scientists say that AGCC is real, special interest news media and random internet blogs that rant about tyrannical obama government say it's fake.

You decide who has more authority, scientists that specialize in the field or your favorite internet rant blog.

[Dasffion]

The "Climate Change is part of the natural cycle" arguments frustrate the crap out of me. Yes, it is but what they don't seem to realize is that it's happening at a much quicker rate than is natural, the global temperatures are increasing over 50 years what should take hundreds or thousands.

[Rukentuts]

The "Climate Change is part of the natural cycle" arguments frustrate the crap out of me. Yes, it is but what they don't seem to realize is that it's happening at a much quicker rate than is natural, the global temperatures are increasing over 50 years what should take hundreds or thousands.

Or that there is a massive variable not present in other "natural cycles": us.

[Xarkan]

That people would rather focus on the politics of GCC and not on the issue itself is the entire problem. Especially with the denier field. They'd rather get muddied and bogged down in politics than science and fact.

Is it the entire problem though?

The politics are useless if they do not work. It is my impression that CO2 taxation on electricity generally fails to make people reduce their consumption. However if you force people to use different light bulbs they will use less electricity. Granted they will also be angry, some lamps work horribly with low energy bulbs.. *shrugs* Not saying i am happy with the idea of force, i am not, but taxation seems to fail, same with taxation on gas, it just gives more income. I have no hard data on this at all, it is merely an impression.

[Gheld]

The "Climate Change is part of the natural cycle" arguments frustrate the crap out of me. Yes, it is but what they don't seem to realize is that it's happening at a much quicker rate than is natural, the global temperatures are increasing over 50 years what should take hundreds or thousands.

There is no empirical data that is thousands of years old by which to claim such a statement has any scientific legitimacy.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Now now, you can't objectively prove that people can pour bleach on the ground.

I laughed out loud. Thanks.

[oblivionx]

Or that there is a massive variable not present in other "natural cycles": us.

The natural cycle has varied wildly and warmer without us and with us.

[Endus]

Is it the entire problem though?

The politics are useless if they do not work. It is my impression that CO2 taxation on electricity generally fails to make people reduce their consumption. However if you force people to use different light bulbs they will use less electricity. Granted they will also be angry, some lamps work horribly with low energy bulbs.. *shrugs* Not saying i am happy with the idea of force, i am not, but taxation seems to fail, same with taxation on gas, it just gives more income. I have no hard data on this at all, it is merely an impression.

The general idea is that the funds raised by such taxes can go towards funding offset programs to mitigate the effect. Whether or not that's actually the case is another question, but that was the theory, anyway.

There is no empirical data that is thousands of years old by which to claim such a statement has any scientific legitimacy.

That's not true, at all. There's thousands of years worth of such data that has been gleaned through analysis of ice cores and tree rings. Nor are those new sources of data.

Heck, some of the ice core data we've generated goes back hundreds of thousands of years.

[oblivionx]

And none of that was "forced" on anyone.

It's a democratically elected government. Nobody is being enslaved. You don't always get your way, but that's how society works. That was the issue; not whether current "green" car tech is ideal, but the claim that it's being "forced" on people.

Thanks for giving us a text book definition of tyranny.

Just because you have the votes to do something does not make it "right" to do.